Using simplification to make predictions about reality ≠ "having a fantasy".

The entire mode of operation of science involves being aware that one's approach is less than absolutely accurate. The advance of science certainly debunked vitalist views of nature as some irreducible essence. It's a "common trope" to equate to such debunking into turning nature into a machine but nature itself remains as it is regardless of our ideas.

Disagree. A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy. Scientists should be (and usually are) well aware of this.

Importantly, the documentary explores some historical examples of where these models were used to attempt to understand, predict, and shape human behavior. Some might find the use of models in these ways immoral, and in my opinion the documentary does a pretty good job of exploring it.

The linguistic sense of the fantasy is of an idea of dubious value. But you (and the OP) seem to take position that one can use the term for any idea. If we're going to operate that way, I could just as well say that your claim that "A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy." is itself a "fantasy".

>Most of what you've said in your comment is non sequitur, and I suggest you edit it out.

I believe this is unnecessarily rude. I appreciated the content of your comment but I feel your mild personal attack devalues it.

Comments like par for the course in humanities [...] often used to let artists have their feelings aren't terribly polite either, freighted as they are with implications of intellectual inferiority.

Since that poster can dish out criticism, I'm sure he can take some in return.

I don't. It wasn't a personal attack. I think he jumps to conclusions that are unwarranted, and I'm asking him to kindly edit them out. In no way did I attack his person.

In the same spirit I perceive that you that telling people to remove comments that you don't agree with reduces my opportunities to read and consider them. Please refrain from doing this.