alt Hacker NewsOf course we could say that all models are "wrong" because they are simplifications of the reality. But there's wrong and wrong. We don't usually say a model like the Newtonian motion is wrong, it's not a very useful way to deal with models.
Newtonian motion has been shown to be repeatable and to accurately predict motion within limits. It has scientific backing.
The asker-guesser model isn't even shown to be a simplification of the reality. And actually, later in that High-context and low-context cultures [1] Wikipedia article:
> A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped".
Which is scientific speak for bullshit.
There's a world between scientifically backed "wrong" Newtonian movement and random internet forum comment backed social model found to be "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped".
The Newtonian movement is an evidence-backed simplification. The asker-guesser model is a persuasive illusion.
Are you really comparing some internet commenter with Newton and the broader scientific community?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c...
> The Newtonian movement is an evidence-backed simplification. The asker-guesser model is a persuasive illusion.
Both are evidence-backed simplifications. The difference is in the amount of evidence and degree of simplification. Both are better than random in their respective domain, and can be useful depending on your tolerance for errors.
Sometimes even a very broad simplification is useful. E.g. it's perfectly valid to assume that π = 3 or even π = 5 to simplify some calculations, if you don't need the value to be more accurate than "non-negative and less than 10". It'll probably cost you something somewhere (e.g. you end up ordering too much paint), but being able to do the math in your head quickly is often worth it.
I could keep inventing examples, but surely you'll be able to come up with some of your own, once you realize there's no hard divide between what's scientific and not. These are just rough categories. In reality, you have models of varying complexity, correlation with reality, and various utility. It's a continuum.
Also:
> Are you really comparing some internet commenter with Newton and the broader scientific community?
Yes. Don't be biased against Internet commenters. Papers don't write themselves ex nihilo, and are generally distillation of existing ideas, not the first place where new ideas are ever published. And scientists are Internet users too.