A Mere Model vs A Faithful Description — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 14, 15):

Generally, the more science moves away from common sense, the harder it is to decide what constitutes a mere model and what is supposed to be a faithful description of the real world. …

If history is anything to go by, nature has a nasty habit of deceiving us about what is real and what is invented by human beings. The apparent motion of the stars, reflecting the real motion of the Earth, is only one of a long list of examples in which scientists have been led astray by taking nature too much at face value.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the distinction between a 'mere model' and a 'faithful description' is a matter of interpersonal assessment in terms of validity.  For example, the Ptolemaic astronomical model of epicycles was assessed as valid in terms of predicting planetary motion, but came to be assessed as invalid in terms of its construal of the Earth as the centre of the universe.

From this perspective, the distinction is not between 'what is real' and 'what is invented by humans' but between meanings that are assessed as valid and meanings that are assessed as invalid on the basis of scientific criteria.