Comment by _the_inflator

“Models work great” - you are in an infinite loop of recursion when you shift your frame from “Don’t trust the experts” critic to “Models work until falsified”.

This doesn’t solve your problem of who decides it is? Or isn’t?

I like the former argument that you should question “experts”.

After all, why use the “Trust the experts model” at all? Which experts? How many? What is a model? What does “works” mean? What not? And who decides about the decision-making process itself?

The former poster has merits because it is a battle of models: and again, research and new findings must not be tied to obscure academic titles.

Two academics of the same level come to opposite conclusions - now what?

And a scoring system still doesn’t change the fact that nature doesn’t care about anthropomorphic models.

I studied law, math and computer science and I was especially disappointed by mathematics, after all this is an anthropological abstraction by human beings and Cantor is the best example of shunning a man’s work, which was ground breaking, just because academic consensus opted against him and didn’t accept his work.

Only many year after his death his system became a standard that appears so clear that you wonder what was wrong with the committee back then.

So mathematics is far from being this strict, stringent and logical profession, as it is branded. Instead there are human beings using a model that abides to certain rules.

Useful, but no proof at all, whether there is a better one, like with Newton and Einstein.

Cantor by the way quit mathematics due to the rejection of his work, which was accompanied by hostility.

You be the judge here.