MODEL: A semantic muddle
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(2) |
| ID | ◀ 2142 ▶ |
| Object type | Epistemology, ontology or semantics |
In her paper on “Models and retroductive inference”, M. ESTEP explores “some of the broad categories of the concept of ”model“ in scientific inquiry” (1992, p.585).
She states: “Clearly, some in the systems science community would use ”theory“ and ”model“ as equivalent. Others have taken a more qualified position, that is that models are ”embryonic theories“ and theories are ”generalized full-term models“ (See next heading) (W. ACAR, 1988, p.172).
According to M. ESTEP, however, “All models and theories are ”abstract“ and ”concrete“ to some degree”.
The distinction is still quite obscure: it would seem that any first level model is a homomorphic representation of some “object” (with all the ambiguities associated with this term). Further on, collections of more or less isomorphic models may appear and allow for the construction of more abstract and general models (in a gradation explained by KORZYBSKI through his structural differential). A set of abstract models, satisfactorily interconnected within a logical and more global frame, could indeed be called a theory, as defined by M. ESTEP: “A system of statements which are conjectures characterizing objects”…
In any case, theories are farther away from objects than models are, and reflects quite more our basic mental structures and mindscapes.