On 8/9/06, McNamara, Laura A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree, and I think the approach that RAND take is as good as any. My concern though is that any social science model is inevitably subjective at a deep, deep level. You want a simulation that shows it's a good idea to invade Iraq? No problem, I'll interview a bunch of experts, code up realistic micro-rules and give you a simulation that shows yes, that's a sensible policy. You want a simulation that shows it's not a good idea to invade Iraq? No problem, I'll just interview a different set of experts, get some different micro-rules in there and voila, I've shown invasion is a Bad Thing.
Like I said, I'm getting more and more convinced that social science ABMs just project the prejudices of their authors/funders. Or does anyone have an example of an objective 'uncorrupted' social science ABM?
Robert
Computational social science doesn't lend itself to V&V the way that physics-based mod-sim does, so creativity in V&V is required...
I agree, and I think the approach that RAND take is as good as any. My concern though is that any social science model is inevitably subjective at a deep, deep level. You want a simulation that shows it's a good idea to invade Iraq? No problem, I'll interview a bunch of experts, code up realistic micro-rules and give you a simulation that shows yes, that's a sensible policy. You want a simulation that shows it's not a good idea to invade Iraq? No problem, I'll just interview a different set of experts, get some different micro-rules in there and voila, I've shown invasion is a Bad Thing.
Like I said, I'm getting more and more convinced that social science ABMs just project the prejudices of their authors/funders. Or does anyone have an example of an objective 'uncorrupted' social science ABM?
Robert
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
