This week I chose models because beneath societal blindness, misuse of authority, blurred boundaries, and overreach in enforcement lies something deeper: the models we use to interpret reality. Scientific models work because they approximate patterns in the world—but problems arise when we forget they are approximations. When explanations harden into identities, when frameworks are treated as reality itself, humility disappears and correction becomes nearly impossible. This week’s piece explores why models are necessary, why they work even when they aren’t literally true, and why remembering that the map is not the territory may be the quiet discipline that holds everything else together.
WWB Research
Models
(18 Feb 2026: Models)
Audio Edition
~ 10 to 12 minutes of audio
I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the
Wednesday, February 18 2026 edition
of the Weekly Wisdom Builder. The core research that informs the week’s TST Weekly Column.
This is the expanded story mode edition.
With that, let’s frame the week’s key idea.
This week’s idea is Models.
This week, we explore the idea of Models.
Models explain reality without being reality.
Now for this week’s 6 Weekly Crossroads. The goal, to blend and forge intersections into wisdom.
Claims are grounded at the smallest level possible, allowing evidence to be updated once and reflected everywhere it is used.
Supporting the effort are tidbits.
This structure allows essays to remain readable and reflective, while citations stay precise, visible, and accountable.
On the home page are the key ideas for each, the core takeaways are also available here, but this story mode is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”
1.
A Philosophy Story.
From History:
Subject: TST Ethics.
Born 1879.
Lived from 1879 to 1950, aged 70
Humans do not respond directly to reality. We respond to our representations of it.
The central point is this.
Clarity begins when we remember that our beliefs are models, not reality itself. When we hold our maps lightly — testing, refining, and revising them — we think more clearly and argue less blindly.
Now, the details…
Alfred Korzybski was a Polish-American thinker trained in engineering and mathematics. After serving in World War I, he emigrated to the United States and devoted his life to studying how language shapes human thought.
“The map is not the territory.”
Korzybski devoted his life to a deceptively simple insight: humans confuse their descriptions of reality with reality itself. Trained as an engineer and shaped by the devastation of World War I, he became obsessed with how language, symbols, and models quietly shape belief and behavior. His work in general semantics wasn’t anti-science or anti-reason—it was a warning about abstraction. Models are indispensable, but when we forget they are models, they harden into dogma. Korzybski saw this mistake everywhere: in politics, ideology, education, and even science itself.
In 1933, he published Science and Sanity, where he introduced General Semantics — a framework for understanding how humans confuse words with reality. He later founded the Institute of General Semantics to develop and teach these ideas.
Korzybski was not primarily a traditional philosopher. He was closer to a systems thinker — someone concerned with how humans build models, how those models influence behavior, and how misuse of language distorts reasoning.
That Philosophy Story,
was first published on TST 24 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: In Korzybski’s General Semantics, what is a linguistic or symbolic representation of reality?
Back: A Map
2.
A Philosophy Quote.
Subject: Worldviews.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr..
- 1858.
Animal brains learn by impressions. You are born into a family, into a culture at a particular time. Your spacetime literally forges who you start out as.
In simple terms.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. reminded us that we are not forged in a vacuum. We are born into a family with a family view, and into a society with a societal view. Long before we can choose our own beliefs, we inherit them. Our traditions, our education, and our early experiences shape how the world first makes sense to us. In this very real way, we are products of our upbringing.
Now, the details…
Here is a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. from 1858:
“We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible.”
What did he mean? Holmes raises an important point about the origins of our personalities, reminding us that initially it is formed by those raising us in a particular setting at a particular time. This quote is used in chapter 7 of “30 Philosophers” to explore worldviews and identity. Current thoughts indicated that our worldviews and identities are imprinted upon us starting at birth.
The quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. captures a profound truth about the human experience: from the moment we are born, we are imprinted with the cultural norms, beliefs, and values of the society around us. These “tattoos” shape our identity, influencing how we see the world and our place within it. While these beliefs may appear superficial—mere traditions or assumptions—they often lie deeply rooted in our subconscious, quietly steering our actions and decisions. This foundation, formed in childhood, becomes the lens through which we interpret life, and it requires deliberate effort to critically evaluate and potentially reshape.
Holmes raises an important point about the origins of our personalities, reminding us that they are initially shaped by those raising us in a specific environment and time. In chapter 7 of 30 Philosophers, this quote serves as a gateway to exploring worldviews and identity, tying Holmes’ insight to modern understandings of how our core perspectives are imprinted from birth. Through this chapter, readers are invited to reflect on their inherited beliefs and consider how understanding their roots can lead to a more authentic and examined life. After all, growth begins when we move beyond the “indelible” tattoos of our tribe to embrace a broader understanding of ourselves and the world.
That Philosophy Quote,
was first published on TST 1 year ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
3.
A Science FAQ.
Subject: TST Ethics.
Scientific models succeed not because they are perfectly true, but because they reliably capture patterns in reality.
From another angle.
Scientific models work because they structure aspects of reality like key relationships, variables, and components. Over time, models are refined, expanded, or superseded, not because science fails, but because science progresses models by improving maps, not by claiming direct access to reality.
Now, the details…
Scientific models work because they approximate reality, not because they perfectly mirror it.
A model is a structured simplification — a map, not the territory. When we describe an atom as a tiny solar system, or light as a wave, or spacetime as a fabric, we are not claiming those metaphors are physically exact. We are building tools that capture patterns well enough to predict outcomes. If the predictions hold, the model is useful — even if it is incomplete.
Throughout history, models have been refined rather than discarded outright. Newton’s gravity still works for launching rockets and building bridges, even though Einstein showed it was not the full story. Early atomic models captured energy levels long before quantum mechanics revealed probability clouds. Superseded does not mean useless — it means limited in scope.
Scientific models work because reality has structure. Our rational frameworks latch onto that structure. The closer the fit, the better the predictions. Models are not literal copies of the world — they are disciplined approximations that survive because they continue to work.
That Science FAQ,
was first published on TST 24 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What is a simplified symbolic representation of reality used to explain and predict patterns?
Back: Scientific model
4.
A Philosophy FAQ.
Subject: TST Ethics.
We confuse explanations with reality because they reduce uncertainty and satisfy our need for coherence.
What matters here is this.
Humility sharpens perception. When we remember that our models are lenses rather than the world itself, we become less defensive, more curious, and more capable of refinement.
Now, the details…
Because explanations soothe us.
A good explanation feels solid. It gives shape to chaos. It reduces uncertainty. In that relief, we begin to treat the explanation as if it were the thing itself. Ancient traditions called this maya — the veil of appearance. Modern psychology calls it cognitive bias. Either way, the mind prefers coherence over confusion. When a model works well enough, we stop seeing it as a model.
Our brains are prediction machines. We don’t experience raw reality — we experience interpretations shaped by language, memory, expectation, and culture. Confirmation bias rewards us for defending our existing map. The illusion of explanatory depth makes us believe we understand far more than we do. Over time, the framework becomes invisible. We no longer see it as a lens — we see it as the world.
That is why intellectual humility matters. Socrates famously claimed wisdom in knowing that he did not know. Not because knowledge is impossible, but because our explanations are always partial. The correction is not cynicism. It is disciplined modesty. Reality remains what it is. Our descriptions are attempts — sometimes brilliant, sometimes flawed — but always provisional.
That Philosophy FAQ,
was first published on TST 24 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: According to Socrates, what personal boundary marks the beginning of wisdom? A:
Back: Knowledge ignorance (Epistemic limits)
5.
Critical thinking almost always boils down to epistemology, and here, that means the Idea of Ideas.
The Idea of Ideas allows science, philosophy, and lived experience to coexist without contradiction.
A Critical Thinking FAQ.
Subject: TST Ethics.
Kant showed that human experience filters reality; the Idea of Ideas extends that insight by classifying our explanations into empirical, rational, and irrational.
To be clear.
Humility begins when we recognize two things at once: we never access reality without interpretation, and not all interpretations are equal. The discipline is not to abandon frameworks, but to sort them carefully — testing which are anchored, which are structured, and which drift untethered.
Now, the details…
This is about epistemology — how we humans describe reality using words.
In 30 Philosophers, I explore the evolution of this idea — from the unknowable Dao, to Hume’s logic, to Kant’s filtered reality, and beyond. In Chapter 18, I introduce the Idea of Ideas — because that’s the point in the evolution where we needed a common set of words to explain the rest of the story.
It’s a modern update of Kant’s core insight:
That human experience shapes what we know.
And that not all ideas are created equal.
Kant drew a line between the world we experience and the world we can’t.
But he didn’t yet have falsifiability — Popper’s principle asserts a claim must be testable to count as knowledge.
My framework picks up there.
- Empirical ideas describe reality directly — confirmed by observation or measurement.
- Rational ideas describe reality indirectly — they’re logical, structured, and testable. They’re not guesses. They’re true ideas that just happen to be framed in terms of patterns, principles, or math.
- Irrational ideas do neither — they’re untested, untestable, or disproven. That includes astrology, flat Earth, and speculative stories like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
To illustrate, take algebra. It’s a rational tool — but statements using it fall into all three categories:
- “2 + 2 = 4” — That can be empirical when used to count apples. It directly describes a real-world observation.
- “x² + y² = r²” — That’s rational, describing the logic of a circle in space — abstract, structured, and testable.
- “x + x = 5 when x = 2” — That’s irrational, a disproven claim. It’s mathematically false.
So — is the split in the Idea of Ideas the same as Kant’s?
No, but it is structurally inspired by Kant, just not equivalent. Kant gave us the filter with a focus on how we experience a reality we can never fully know. The Idea of Ideas categorizes ideas into empirical, rational, and irrational — a structure meant to clarify how knowledge, fiction, and history relate to reality.
That Critical Thinking FAQ,
was first published on TST 24 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What modern principle did Popper add to epistemology?
Back: Falsifiability (claims must be testable)
6.
A History FAQ.
Subject: Scientific Modeling.
Better models can radically improve understanding without being ultimate truth.
That takeaway is this.
Copernicus teaches us that replacing one model with a better one is not an admission of past foolishness, but a sign of intellectual growth. The power of a model lies in its explanatory strength; its limit lies in the fact that it is still a representation.
Now, the details…
Copernicus revealed the power of models by daring to redraw the map. For centuries, the Earth-centered system had grown increasingly complex, patched with epicycles to preserve appearances. It worked—after a fashion—but it strained under its own adjustments. When Nicolaus Copernicus placed the Sun at the center, the heavens suddenly became more coherent. The motions of the planets simplified. Retrograde motion made sense. A cleaner structure emerged. His heliocentric model demonstrated that a better framework can illuminate patterns that were always there but poorly organized.
Yet Copernicus also showed the limits of models. His system still relied on perfect circles, still required small epicycles, and was not immediately more accurate in prediction than the old system. It was an improvement in structure, not perfection in truth. The map had become clearer—but it was still a map. Later refinements by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton would deepen the explanation, revealing elliptical orbits and gravitational laws. The model evolved.
His revolution therefore teaches two lessons at once. First, models have power: they can reorganize reality in ways that reveal hidden order. Second, models have limits: even a transformative framework remains provisional. What feels definitive in one century may be transitional in the next. Copernicus did not deliver the final word on the cosmos—he delivered a better approximation.
In that sense, Copernicus embodies intellectual humility. He reminds us that progress does not come from defending inherited maps, nor from worshiping new ones, but from testing, refining, and sometimes replacing them. Models work because reality has structure. They fail when we mistake structure for certainty. Copernicus showed that a courageous revision of the map can clarify the territory—while still leaving room for further correction.
That History FAQ,
was first published on TST 24 hours ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What later refinement improved Copernicus’s model?
Back: Elliptical orbits (Kepler)
That’s it for this week!
Join us again next week. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth Wednesdays at 3 PM PST, and emailed Thursdays.
If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.
TouchstoneTruth is a living body of work built around single ideas, each explored carefully and revised openly over time.
Thanks for listening.
The end.