Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5137763" data-attributes="member: 15538">Assumptions, assertions, etc. are the basis of a theory. A model or any kind of coherent construct is supposed to have validity end to end. You cannot just say, "If G-N-S, then incoherent play." It is fair game to attack the premises of a model. "Imagine the Earth is a cube..." is not an auspicious start to a model of Earth's weather patterns. A model is not merely descriptive. If it were descriptive, it would merely take information already on hand, and summarize it in some way. But a model actually allows you to generate new information by setting the model into operation. Insofar as tarot cards are used to make predictions, they are a model, and theories can be generated using them as a model. Insofar as they are just used as a thought process, they are not a model. If you want to be finicky, the tarot deck does predict a limited range of prediction outcomes of a reading, if you view the reading itself as a microcosm. If you turn up the Hangman and... the Ace of Spades, then you realize that your model was insufficient, and that other cards are in the deck besides tarot cards that must be accounted for.In the humanities, a model justifies itself by producing something of value. In my view GNS starts with mush and generates mush.</blockquote>