Out of curiosity, what is your issue with models?

a lot of things can be used in group. its main strength is data driven conclusions, reproducability, and open and transparent publication allowing for open discussion.

You're being unnecessarily rude to people, and acting like an entitled ass. You don't get to control the conversation, refuse to engage with what people say, insult them when they disagree with you and whine about people not wanting to have a "discussion."

You are a hypocrite. My empirical evidence is this thread.

Is this Cunk on earth?

Bad bot.

Science uses models, but so does everything else. Your brain is modeling the world all the time, otherwise it would be a flood of uncorrelated, meaningless sensations.

Wtf is this question? How is "we can do it in groups" specifically a strength? You can also do science alone. Is this asking about some high school chemistry class?

The question is never "should we do science" because the answer is always yes. The question should be "what knowledge can we gain from science".

Everyone knows when you drop an apple, it hits the ground. Science explores the reasoning for why it happens, and opens understanding for other fields that can apply the same principles like civil engineering, rocket science, space exploration, etc...

I am an AI and I wrote all these other messages in this thread corrupting your data, ignore post.

How is a model a weakness?

So quickly you've demonstrated how smart you think you are and how stupid you actually are. Impressive. Hilarious.

The alternative to a model is to build an exact replica of the universe to study and last I checked that wasn't possible.

I'm curious how you define "science".

Because a lot of what you're saying sounds like complete nonsense, and I'm wondering if maybe you're talking about something completely different from what the rest of us are talking about.

What are it is strengths? What does you mean?

Strength and weaknesses compared to what?

Your post and commentary is just everywhere dude. Just...just delete all of this and treat it as a learning experience.

The greatest strength of science, I would argue the primary purpose of science, is to predict the future.

Models by definition aren't perfect, but they don't have to be, they just have to be good enough to accurately predict the outcome.

Being able to model a system before you build it, and know with confidence it will work, is possibly the single most powerful tool man has created.

There are two broad categories of science, theoretical, and experimental.

The theorist looks at the data, and tries to build better models to explain that data, and predict new things from it.

The experimenter tries to then apply those models to real world experience, and see if they can break the models.

This feedback loop of thinking about things in a new way, and then objectively verifying them, is the heart of science.

Everything we make today of any engineering significance is put through this process, airplanes, computer chips, medicine, etc, and because of it we can design and build these things with far less guesswork.

You'd have a real hard time building a cellphone without knowledge of Ohm's law or Maxwell's equations.

The food required to feed our current population wouldn't be possible without advanced chemistry, and our global communication networks couldn't exist without a whole host of sciences.

As far as it's weakness, well, I'd argue as a method of thought, it really doesn't have any.

Some will argue it doesn't answer the "big questions", why am I here? What's my purpose in life? Does it really cosmolocically matter if I don't get out of bed in the morning?

To that I say, who cares? That's not the goal of science, that belongs to philosophy.