Models in Natural Science

Without models, there is no science -Kyu-

This quote that I just made might sound absurd, but I am telling you, I am being serious. When we learn sciences (bio, chem, physics, etc) in school, we encounted models everytime, but we are so indifferent with them. These models are like conduits that allow knowledge to pass through and to be delivered to us. Also, these models are like maps that guide us through the obscure world of natural science.

For example, this diagram below which illustrates the circulation of water omits so may external factors such as pollution, omits individual droplets, and how each droplets can have variations. Despite these many downfalls, we cannot say this model is wrong or inaccurate because it sure is accurate and useful when looking at the big picture. I want to highlight the word, 'big picture' and go in depth. In natural science, where millions of theories exist and not a single can be told wrong; if each theory were to be incorporated in a model, that model wouldn't be a 'model' anymore as it loses its true meaning-which is to be guiding and easily comprehensible.

Another example is one that I mentioned before:Circuits. In class, we are asked to construct a tangible circuit by looking at an intangible circuit that is drawn on paper. How are we able to do this and are those intangible circuits wrong because they don't so many things into account? Instead of trying to define whether it's wrong or right, we should be thankful of these models as they are maps and conduits of the knowledge we currently have.