I mean, really, this is quite an argument:<p>1) You have a working system. You know only bits and pieces of how it works.<p>2) You build a crude model of the system. It kinds of sucks at doing the stuff the System is doing well.<p>3) People over several decades apply tons and tons of task-specific optimizations and modifications to your model. Those modifications have nothing to do with the original system, but because of them the model finally achieves good performance at <i>some</i> tasks.<p>4) You use the hype generated by #3 to claim that you were right all along and that your model captures the essential aspects of the original system.<p>5) When people point out that your model works in ways that clearly don&#x27;t match the original system, you make a claim that <i>it&#x27;s the original system that approximates your model</i>, not the other way around. Without any observations of the original system supporting your claim.