Comments on: Models? We don’t need no stinking models! http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/06/26/models-we-dont-need-no-stinking-models/ EBB is the ebiquity research group\\\'s blog at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). We focus on technologies that facilitate the design, implementation and control of distributed, intelligent information systems -- mobile and pervasive computing, ad hoc networking, multiagent systems, knowledge representation and reasoning, and the semantic web. As the tides of technology ebb and flow, we hope the good ideas wash up on our beach and the bad ones drift back out to sea. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:39:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kjetil Kjernsmo http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/06/26/models-we-dont-need-no-stinking-models/comment-page-1/#comment-23755 Kjetil Kjernsmo Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:52:05 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1539#comment-23755 Actually, to some extent, the idea is that a model can only take you so far is not at all new. Historically, there has been many times where scientists have abandoned a physical model for a purely, applied, mathematical one. If you forget the Kuhnian view of what happened in what is called the "Copernican revolution", it becomes quite clear that what happened was that allready Ptolemy ignored the physics of his day, which to him was flawed, for a mathematical model, which pragmatically was decent, but wrong. Copernicus, realising that the physics was wrong, but wishing to do something about it, came up with a heliocentric model, which was also wrong, but pointed to a new direction. Most of his contemporaries was perfectly fine with the mathematical model, which served them well, but a few proceeded to establish a new model, and it took a few centuries to get to the Newtonian universe, where the physical model was again clear. Now, that too had shortcomings, and modern physics is, IMHO, in a situation where mathematical pragmatism rather than deep, physical understanding, dominates. But history has shown that this is a situation of crisis, rather than a novel and useful way to look at the world. That's the thing with Google to. It isn't very good, actually. We have customers who work with people and helping them find stuff, and that's the story they're telling: Google isn't always very helpful. I believe that this is a time of crisis, in the scientific sense, and the solution isn't to abandon models, it is to establish new theory and new models. And I believe that we have a pretty decent first iteration in the Semantic Web. Perhaps we're just being Copernicus, but at least we're better than Ptolemy (which is Google's counterpart in this :-) ) Actually, to some extent, the idea is that a model can only take you so far is not at all new. Historically, there has been many times where scientists have abandoned a physical model for a purely, applied, mathematical one. If you forget the Kuhnian view of what happened in what is called the “Copernican revolution”, it becomes quite clear that what happened was that allready Ptolemy ignored the physics of his day, which to him was flawed, for a mathematical model, which pragmatically was decent, but wrong. Copernicus, realising that the physics was wrong, but wishing to do something about it, came up with a heliocentric model, which was also wrong, but pointed to a new direction. Most of his contemporaries was perfectly fine with the mathematical model, which served them well, but a few proceeded to establish a new model, and it took a few centuries to get to the Newtonian universe, where the physical model was again clear.

Now, that too had shortcomings, and modern physics is, IMHO, in a situation where mathematical pragmatism rather than deep, physical understanding, dominates.

But history has shown that this is a situation of crisis, rather than a novel and useful way to look at the world. That’s the thing with Google to. It isn’t very good, actually. We have customers who work with people and helping them find stuff, and that’s the story they’re telling: Google isn’t always very helpful.

I believe that this is a time of crisis, in the scientific sense, and the solution isn’t to abandon models, it is to establish new theory and new models. And I believe that we have a pretty decent first iteration in the Semantic Web. Perhaps we’re just being Copernicus, but at least we’re better than Ptolemy (which is Google’s counterpart in this :-) )

]]> By: Kingsley Idehen http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/06/26/models-we-dont-need-no-stinking-models/comment-page-1/#comment-23606 Kingsley Idehen Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:25:25 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=1539#comment-23606 I think the issues isn't the usual "All or Nothing" as per usual ,with articles such as these (where provocation is the prime driver), but the need for "model dexterity". In a sense, we are revisting "Closed World" and "Open World" models via the backdoor :-) The whole premise of the Semantic Web vision, comes down to infrastructure built around an inherently dexterious data model i.e RDF . Kingsley Idehen I think the issues isn’t the usual “All or Nothing” as per usual ,with articles such as these (where provocation is the prime driver), but the need for “model dexterity”. In a sense, we are revisting “Closed World” and “Open World” models via the backdoor :-)

The whole premise of the Semantic Web vision, comes down to infrastructure built around an inherently dexterious data model i.e RDF .

Kingsley Idehen

]]>