Only if the whole would work for us could we draw conclusions from it. Due to the way it is constructed, the Archipelago is inherently not transferable to our world. So, nothing can be deduced from this “exercise in political science”, especially concerning politics.
This seems basically wrong to me. No model of anything can be fully transferred to the real world. The quality of a model comes from the model highlighting or clarifying important dimensions of reality that help us make better decision.
I think you are mostly constructing a strawman of Scott here, that doesn’t really criticize the model on the dimensions on which it tried to be useful, and where it hoped to be applied, and instead attacks the model on a bunch of irrelevant extrapolitions where the model never claimed to have much accuracy or meaning. (Example: Critizing the atomic theory of the nucleus for clearly being bad at describing the way electricity flows through wires. The model is primarily optimized to help you understand phase transitions, collisions and chemical reactions, and will fail in many cases. This does not make it a bad model.)
Actually, the last paragraph is exactly my point. If I am not completely wrong, the Archipelago suggests a utopia, a political state to strife to achieve (at least in part). But you can’t draw conclusions about something else, in this case politics. You would have to show that it has meaning, accuracy or transferability for that, however you want to phrase it.
That’s why I don’t think the word model is right here. For a describtion, a model would be fine, and might help. I don’t think the Archipelago is a model in that sense.
EDIT: Let me give you a stupid and arbitrary example. Imagine a world where all dogs are at least 7 feet high, and people still loved dogs. Obviously, with their height, they could potentially be dangerous. Thus, in that world, it would make sense to say that all dogs should undergo mandatory training. But that doesn’t follow for our world.
This seems basically wrong to me. No model of anything can be fully transferred to the real world. The quality of a model comes from the model highlighting or clarifying important dimensions of reality that help us make better decision.
I think you are mostly constructing a strawman of Scott here, that doesn’t really criticize the model on the dimensions on which it tried to be useful, and where it hoped to be applied, and instead attacks the model on a bunch of irrelevant extrapolitions where the model never claimed to have much accuracy or meaning. (Example: Critizing the atomic theory of the nucleus for clearly being bad at describing the way electricity flows through wires. The model is primarily optimized to help you understand phase transitions, collisions and chemical reactions, and will fail in many cases. This does not make it a bad model.)
Actually, the last paragraph is exactly my point. If I am not completely wrong, the Archipelago suggests a utopia, a political state to strife to achieve (at least in part). But you can’t draw conclusions about something else, in this case politics. You would have to show that it has meaning, accuracy or transferability for that, however you want to phrase it.
That’s why I don’t think the word model is right here. For a describtion, a model would be fine, and might help. I don’t think the Archipelago is a model in that sense.
EDIT: Let me give you a stupid and arbitrary example. Imagine a world where all dogs are at least 7 feet high, and people still loved dogs. Obviously, with their height, they could potentially be dangerous. Thus, in that world, it would make sense to say that all dogs should undergo mandatory training. But that doesn’t follow for our world.