Are all models wrong?

[Skepdick]

1 If losless compression is not a model of the original, then neither is lossy compression.

Nonsense. That is EXACTLY what a model is. Partial (incomplete!!!!) representation of the original.

And partial or incomplete is exactly what losless compression IS NOT.

2 If you don't call losless compression 'right', then why call lossy compression 'wrong'?

You could totally call it that if you want to - nobody would object.

It's a complete representation.
Perfect representation.
A clone.

3 If you want to talk about identity, then we're into the philosophical wilderness you claim to despise.

Nonsense. Losless/lossy compression are daily occurrence in a computer scientist' life. It has practical and financial implications to me - it's not "just philosophy"

Book writers, music and video artists, and other digital content producers are affected by the "metaphysics of identity" on daily basis when people make copies of their work. How can piracy be theft if you still have the original?

4 I suggest you go back to the drawing board, because you've got this wrong.

Dumb Philosopher. It's just an adage. It's wisdom, not Truth. Don't get your panties in a twist about it.

adage /ˈadɪdʒ/ noun a proverb or short statement expressing a general truth.

[Peter Holmes]

1 If losless compression is not a model of the original, then neither is lossy compression.

Nonsense. That is EXACTLY what a model is. Partial (incomplete!!!!) representation of the original.

And partial or incomplete is exactly what losless compression IS NOT.

2 If you don't call losless compression 'right', then why call lossy compression 'wrong'?

You could totally call it that if you want to - nobody would object.

It's a complete representation.
Perfect representation.
A clone.

3 If you want to talk about identity, then we're into the philosophical wilderness you claim to despise.

Nonsense. Losless/lossy compression are daily occurrence in a computer scientist' life. It has practical and financial implications to me - it's not "just philosophy"

Authors and music artists are affected by the "metaphysics of identity" when people steal digital copies of their work. How can piracy be theft if you still have the original?

4 I suggest you go back to the drawing board, because you've got this wrong.

Dumb Philosopher. It's just an adage. Don't get your panties in a twist about it.

Fuck off, troll.

[Skepdick]

Fuck off, troll.

Is that what you say to all people who prove you wrong?

The nerve to accuse me of trolling, when I've given you all the theoretical AND practical pointers necessary to correct your skewed view.

[Peter Holmes]

Fuck off, troll.

Is that what you say to all people who prove you wrong?

The nerve to accuse me of trolling, when I've given you all the theoretical AND practical pointers necessary to correct your skewed view.

Look up 'equivocation fallacy'. And then, fuck off, troll.

[Skepdick]

Look up 'equivocation fallacy'. And then, fuck off, troll.

Peter, you are lashing out. I know what an equivocation fallacy is.

You know that I know this, and I know that you know that I know this because I pointed you to the Wikipedia link in this very discussion.

There is even a name for it. Equivocation

I'll even quote the relevant parts for you, Peter: "calling two different things by the same name".

But George Box is NOT doing that. What George Box is doing is calling the same thing by two different names. That's not equivocation, that's elucidation.

But you know who is guilty of an 'equivocation fallacy', Peter? You! YOU are guilty of it. And who else? ME! I am also guilty of it.
Because throughout this entire conversation we have been using the word "know" to mean a whole lot of different things! And neither of us stopped to complain about our fallaciousness, because we were perfectly capable of navigating around equivocation by inferring the correct meaning given the context in which the word was being used.

Having lost the argument I am sure you are feeling some negative emotions - that's probably why you are lashing out. Pride? Anger? Confusion?- it's OK to be wrong. It's human.

Tell us all how you feel about it.

[uwot]

If you didn't know Peter had a wife, the statement transmitted exactly 1 bit of information from Peter to yourself.

Just for larks, I googled "If you didn't know Peter had a wife" and according to that, nobody has ever said it. One of your arguments was that novel strings of words are 'incomprehensible'. You were quite adamant about it:

There is nothing "standard" about the sentence you are using.
Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".
Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.
You are the first one.

At some point it sunk in that is laughable. You must really like this Skepdick character; normally, you would have shuffled off and snuck back with a new identity. It's pointless going through them all again, but every argument you have posted in your defence is absurd.
This latest effort doesn't cut it either.

You are now capable of answering the yes/no question: "Does Peter have a wife?"
You may have hallucinated a bunch of information, but that's no thanks to Peter.

Provided you already knew Peter had a wife, the statement transmits exactly 0 bits of information - it's incomprehensible.

I didn't know PH has a wife, so if in your fanciful street scene in which PH and myself, two complete strangers (grab the popcorn kids, and watch Skepdick strangle 'complete') bump into each other. He says 'I know my wife', thereby transmitting "exactly 1 bit of information from Peter to yourself", which, if I can follow your logic, renders the sentence comprehensible the first time of use, but the very same sentence becomes incomprehensible, if PH says it again, unless I happen to forget that there is a Mrs Holmes.

Peter knows his wife.
You know your wife.
I know my wife.
Every husband knows their wife.
Every wife knows her husband.

Empty words. If it pleases you more - it's uninformative. It's conversationally useless.

I dunno, 10 pages and counting is a pretty good conversation.
Now ya tell us!

...the language of information theory (which is the language I speak) ...

And presumably in that language 'incomprehensible' means 'transmits exactly 0 bits of information'. Think back, Skepdick, surely there was a time before you spoke 'the language of information theory' and had some mastery of English, a language in which 'I know my wife' makes perfect sense.

[Skepdick]

Just for larks, I googled "If you didn't know Peter had a wife" and according to that, nobody has ever said it. One of your arguments was that novel strings of words are 'incomprehensible'. You were quite adamant about it.

No. That's a strawman version of my argument.

Novel strings of words are incomprehensible when devoid of context. Here's a novel use of some strings: I have a bag of wonderful gipsy sticks.

Google can't help you with inferring any plausible context in which somebody might use that phrase, so what is it that you "comprehend" about it?

At some point it sunk in that is laughable. You must really like this Skepdick character; normally, you would have shuffled off and snuck back with a new identity. It's pointless going through them all again, but every argument you have posted in your defence is absurd.
This latest effort doesn't cut it either.

That is rather peculiar, since I am not the one arguing - I am simply requesting information (in an absurdly verbose way, because philosophers).

Why do you believe I am 'defending myself". Who is "attacking" me and why?

I didn't know PH has a wife, so if in your fanciful street scene in which PH and myself, two complete strangers (grab the popcorn kids, and watch Skepdick strangle 'complete') bump into each other. He says 'I know my wife', thereby transmitting "exactly 1 bit of information from Peter to yourself", which, if I can follow your logic, renders the sentence comprehensible the first time of use, but the very same sentence becomes incomprehensible, if PH says it again, unless I happen to forget that there is a Mrs Holmes.

Great. So that sentence allowed you to learn something about Peter. He has a wife.

What did you learn about Peter's wife from the sentence?

I dunno, 10 pages and counting is a pretty good conversation.

It seems like a monologue to me - going in circles.

And presumably in that language 'incomprehensible' means 'transmits exactly 0 bits of information'. Think back, Skepdick, surely there was a time before you spoke 'the language of information theory' and had some mastery of English, a language in which 'I know my wife' makes perfect sense.

For some trivial and useless notion of 'making sense' - sure.

"I have a bag of wonderful gipsy sticks" makes sense also. I can't wait to hear the kind of sense you've made out of it.

At least I am sure that before I uttered that sentence you didn't even know I had a bag of gipsy sticks.

[Peter Holmes]

Look up 'equivocation fallacy'. And then, fuck off, troll.

Peter, you are lashing out. I know what an equivocation fallacy is.

I found this online: 'There are people who create several different profiles at once for the purposes of trolling.'

And this is from Wikipedia: 'In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.'

I think this describes your contribution pretty accurately, which is why I call you a troll. You poison the well of serious and useful discussion, from which we could all learn, by pissing about with different identities and boasting about the confusion and frustration it causes. And you refuse to acknowledge when you've made a mistake in your reasoning and argument, even when you stick to one identity.

There is even a name for it. Equivocation

I'll even quote the relevant parts for you, Peter: "calling two different things by the same name".

But George Box is NOT doing that. What George Box is doing is calling the same thing by two different names. That's not equivocation, that's elucidation.

This is patent nonsense. What 'thing' is he denoting by different names? And what are the two different names? And how does using different names for the same thing elucidate the situation?

And anyway, I haven't accused Box of equivocation - just of being flat-out wrong to say all models are wrong. The claim is false because incoherent. I accused you of equivocating with your digression about what 'lossless' (correct spelling, btw) and 'lossy' mean in information theory. Yet another failure to acknowledge your mistake.

But you know who is guilty of an 'equivocation fallacy', Peter? You! YOU are guilty of it. And who else? ME! I am also guilty of it.
Because throughout this entire conversation we have been using the word "know" to mean a whole lot of different things! And neither of us stopped to complain about our fallaciousness, because we were perfectly capable of navigating around equivocation by inferring the correct meaning given the context in which the word was being used.

Bollocks. My whole argument has been about the different ways we can and do use words like 'know' in different contexts. And I've never (at least knowingly) tried to pass off an equivocation fallacy in an inference. And here you're admitting that you've been fucking around disruptively by pretending incomprehension. You're a troll. Know yourself. And then fuck off so that we can have a fruitful discussion.

[Skepdick]

And anyway, I haven't accused Box of equivocation

Do you suffer from Alzheimers perhaps?

Okay. So now you've explained a specific, technical use of the word 'wrong': in information theory, a wrong model is equivalent to lossy compression.

To use the word 'wrong' in this way, without clarification, in the claim 'all models are wrong' would be to commit an equivocation fallacy.

You don't even understand what equivocation is and how it works! And equivocation is calling two different things by the same name.

In whatever way the word 'wrong' is being used in the sentence 'All models are wrong' it cannot possibly be equivocation because the word is being used only once. An equivocation requires two or more uses.

Can you even count?

You have erroneously asserted a fallacy and that is itself a fallacy.

[uwot]

Novel strings of words are incomprehensible when devoid of context. Here's a novel use of some strings: I have a bag of wonderful gipsy sticks.

Google can't help you with inferring any plausible context in which somebody might use that phrase, so what is it that you "comprehend" about it?

Well Skepdick, if I were to bump into a complete stranger in the street and they said 'I have a bag of wonderful gipsy sticks', who knows what I might say? Something like 'And I've got a pocket of froopulent goujons' perhaps. With no immediate reason to doubt that the stranger has a bag of wonderful gypsy sticks, I would comprehend that they own a bag, in which there are some things I've never heard of, but which are apparently wonderful. Not knowing what even a less than wonderful gypsy stick is, I might well ask what a gypsy stick is, and what distinguishes the ones in the stranger's bag.

At least I am sure that before I uttered that sentence you didn't even know I had a bag of gipsy sticks.

And now I do. So, what is a gypsy stick, and why are yours particularly wonderful?

[Peter Holmes]

And anyway, I haven't accused Box of equivocation

Do you suffer from Alzheimers perhaps?

Pay attention, you offensive fuckwit. Here's what you wrote:

'Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with greatly improved compression rates (and therefore reduced media sizes).
When using the above vocabulary a "wrong model" is equivalent to lossy compression.'

I said your application of the word 'wrong', denoting lossy compression in information theory, to Box's undifferentiated claim that all models are wrong is an equivocation fallacy. It is also false because, even in information theory, as you agree, there's no reason not to call lossless compression 'right'. So not all models are wrong even in information theory-speak.

Your defence of the claim 'all models are wrong', which you've droned like a mantra on several occasions with no indication of an information-theory context, involved an equivocation on the word 'wrong' - and it's false even given that context. Now, troll, do fuck off.

[henry quirk]

And anyway, I haven't accused Box of equivocation

Do you suffer from Alzheimers perhaps?

Pay attention, you offensive fuckwit. Here's what you wrote:

'Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with greatly improved compression rates (and therefore reduced media sizes).
When using the above vocabulary a "wrong model" is equivalent to lossy compression.'

I said your application of the word 'wrong', denoting lossy compression in information theory, to Box's undifferentiated claim that all models are wrong is an equivocation fallacy. It is also false because, even in information theory, as you agree, there's no reason not to call lossless compression 'right'. So not all models are wrong even in information theory-speak.

Your defence of the claim 'all models are wrong', which you've droned like a mantra on several occasions with no indication of an information-theory context, involved an equivocation on the word 'wrong' - and it's false even given that context. Now, troll, do fuck off.

I bolded the only things I understood in your response to skep, Pete.



You done flummoxed my thinkin' organ.

[uwot]

'Ere PH, would this be why you think Skepdick is a troll?

Why try to placate a dumb philosopher?

Being civil wasn't fruitful - I might as well amuse myself.

Anyway, assuming you have any will left to discuss the content of your OP, it is simply rotten logic to conclude from the fact that all models are underdetermined, that they are all wrong. If you take Faraday's point that "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of physics" and mash it up with Popper's falsifiability criterion, what you get is that any model that isn't flatly refuted by scientific facts could actually be right. We just don't know.

[Peter Holmes]

'Ere PH, would this be why you think Skepdick is a troll?

Why try to placate a dumb philosopher?

Being civil wasn't fruitful - I might as well amuse myself.

Anyway, assuming you have any will left to discuss the content of your OP, it is simply rotten logic to conclude from the fact that all models are underdetermined, that they are all wrong. If you take Faraday's point that "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of physics" and mash it up with Popper's falsifiability criterion, what you get is that any model that isn't flatly refuted by scientific facts could actually be right. We just don't know.

Thanks. I think that's a nice way of putting it. My only reservation would be that I don't understand what a 'fully determined' model - like a complete description - could possibly comprise - so the idea of underdetermination seems problematic. I'd like to pursue this, if you can help.

[Skepdick]

Pay attention, you offensive fuckwit. Here's what you wrote:

'Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with greatly improved compression rates (and therefore reduced media sizes).
When using the above vocabulary a "wrong model" is equivalent to lossy compression.'

I said your application of the word 'wrong', denoting lossy compression in information theory, to Box's undifferentiated claim that all models are wrong is an equivocation fallacy.

Pay attention, ignoramus.

It doesn't matter which meaning of the word "wrong" is being used in the sentence "All models are wrong, some are useful".

If the word "wrong" is only being used ONCE it cannot be equivocation.

Equivocation: Calling two different things by the same name.

Which TWO THINGS am I calling "wrong"?

It is also false because, even in information theory, as you agree, there's no reason not to call lossless compression 'right'. So not all models are wrong even in information theory-speak.

Pay further attention, Ignoramus.

A lossy compression is a model of X. Because information has been lost and X CANNOT be re-constructed in its original form.

In Logic:

lossy-compress(X) = Y
lossy-decompress(Y) = Z

Z != X

A lossless compression of X is NOT a model of X, because X CAN be re-constructed in its original form.

In Logic:

lossless-compress(X) = Y
lossless-decompress(Y) = X

In another language (that you may or may not understand)

lossless-compress(lossless-decompress(X)) is the same as the identity function of X.