Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct?
That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field.
Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
> Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct?
Not quite - I am noting that you speak as if you are not working from a model.
"For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence."
As I noted, you do not actually know if there is no evidence absolutely, you are describing the absence of evidence in your possession/knowledge.
> That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2.
Sure, but in this case we are not discussing a well known domain (coins), we are discussing a not known at all domain (aliens).
And even here in your simple thought experiment, there are facts that you do not have knowledge of (a rigged coin, that you do not realize is rigged (according to your description) because "based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads").
> Unless of course, the universe is deterministic...
Another matter that is not known, but broadly believed to be known.
> Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way.
Generally agree, but even here it's not that simple. Models can cause reality to appear a certain way (consistent with the model), and perceptions of reality are a very important component of reality (very often more important than "actual" reality, in that belief > truth when it comes to human action, which is what determines the end state of physical reality).
> A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Disagree. Some models are built to deceive - see: propaganda/journalism/etc.
> Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
Better models are possible: for example, it is possible to make epistemic status(es) a first class concept. Early 21st century humans tend to very much not like epistemology and logic, but it is there for our usage if we should ever change our ways.
That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field.
Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them.
Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.