I disagree. We only have the model to analyze, we do not have reality.
If the model doesn’t analyze reality then we know nothing about reality. If the model doesn’t analyze reality, then we cannot observe reality.
If we cannot observe, model or analyze reality – then there is no reason to talk about reality at all.
But we do observe reality (or what we think is reality) and we use models as tools to measure what we observe.
There are many aspects of reality that are not in our model;
Very true. We know this from both the Buddhist and Christian views. But when we model some part of reality, we try to infer conclusions about all of reality. Since it’s not possible for any human being to fully comprehend all of reality (that’s an assumption but is very easily supported with evidence), we have to draw conclusions based on what we can know, even though it is partial.
each of our many models only covers a part of reality. Again, your are confusing the model with reality. The model is not reality.
I think this is a problem with terminology once again and I’m probably saying something that has a different definition than what you’re saying. To the best of our knowledge and experience, we think that some things are deliberately designed for a purpose. We model those things and look for patterns that indicate intention and purpose.
That is the fundamental mistake made in the design argument. Everyone agrees that the models are designed. By mistaking the property of the model for a property of reality so it appears that reality is designed. It isn’t, it is just a property incorrectly transferred from the model.
I could follow you all the way to the last sentence. We don’t know that the property is incorrectly transferred from the model. How would we know that reality does not possess the property that the model indicates? To the best of our knowledge (admittedly it is incomplete and could be inaccurate), we observe aspects of reality that “are modelled” and “appear to have properties”.
When we model the speed of objects falling to the earth, you’re right to say that we’re just looking at models. Actually, even the “data” that we use is a form of a model. Data is not reality. It’s a unit of measurement. Falling rocks or raindrops don’t come labelled with measurements or units that mean data. So, we extract data (human concepts) from reality in order to measure things.
So, you’re right. But all of that said … we still consider mass, weight, volume, density, etc. to be properties of matter. Those properties don’t really exist. They’re just models. But because we can, at least, understand (in human terms) something about reality (or we think we do) by using those human-created models, we can talk about reality and make things in reality based on those properties.
The design argument uses other observations and measurements on aspects of reality to draw some conclusions.
With an infinite number of possible theories to pick from there are always going to be incorrect theories that are very close to giving the correct predictions in many cases.
That’s true. There’s another point here also. With an infinite number of possible theories and possible models, we choose one that matches our assumptions at the beginning.
Some of those assumptions are:
- It is possible that something will work.
- We will be able to know something about reality by this theory and model.
- There is a difference between “something that works” and “something that doesn’t work”.
- The reason that we’re measuring things is meaningful, has purpose and value.
- Knowledge about reality is a good thing and not evil.
- Some things are good and others evil.
- We are able to tell the difference between good and evil.
Those are just some of the (faith-based) assumptions imported into the task of choosing a model out of an infinite number of choosing to measure and test anything at all.
This is not at all different than what the Design Argument does. It starts with assumptions and then looks at the evidence.
