Charlie
What you say is very disturbing. I can’t see how you can do science at all 
without having a model. It is most likely that the people you refer to have a 
model but don’t realise it. If this is the case, the model is likely to be a 
very poor one. A model should be a useful simplification of a complex system in 
which both the parameters of the model and the values assigned to these 
parameters are clear.

A good model of a 5G mobile phone mast should be able to predict the amount of 
cancers it is likely to cause. However, politicians who oppose the construction 
of the phone mast (in order to gain votes) will argue that scientists can’t 
prove they don’t cause cancer. This happened in the UK (in Bath) and of course 
the politician was formally correct but their model meant one should not do 
anything.

For those still doubtful about the what a model is see, for example,
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/Models/Text.html
though of course there are many other sources

Still all good fun to discuss.
Colin




From: Carter, Charlie <car...@med.unc.edu>
Sent: 06 November 2022 21:19
To: Nave, Colin (DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI) <colin.n...@diamond.ac.uk>
Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Another folding AI

Colin,

A former graduate student of mine alerted me to Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. 
1978. Statistics for Experimenters. New York: Wiley Interscience in ~1984. I 
bought a new copy then and have very likely spent more time inside that book 
than any other over the years since then. So I’m entirely in your court about 
Box’s contributions.

On the other hand, as I diverged from crystallography into mechanistic 
enzymology and other areas, I began to realize that comments such as those you 
cited also have had the adverse affect of persuading people not to build models 
at all and even to induce real skepticism about building and testing models. I 
find that a shame.

Charlie


On Nov 6, 2022, at 3:12 PM, Nave, Colin (DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI) 
<000064fdcfc6624b-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:000064fdcfc6624b-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>
 wrote:

You don't often get email from 
000064fdcfc6624b-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:000064fdcfc6624b-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>.
 Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
All these quotes are great fun and worth keeping in mind, along with many 
others. I hadn’t realised that the creationists had adopted James Clark Maxwell 
as one of their own. However he didn’t go as far as one present day scientist 
who believes the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Which discipline? 
Palaeontology of course. This person is not even some old fossil.

I always liked George Box’s comments about models. I remember Eleanor Dodson 
saying, probably at some CCP4 refinement study weekend, that a structure 
obtained by protein crystallography was like a curate’s egg. She might have 
predated George Box with this thought.

There should not  be any doubt that AF2 models are useful though. The question 
is how far their usefulness extends.


From: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> 
On Behalf Of Bryan Lepore
Sent: 05 November 2022 17:03
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Another folding AI

And of course,

"... all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some 
are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne 
in mind...."

Box, G. E. P.; Draper, N. R. (1987)
Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces
John Wiley & Sons

"Since all models are wrong the scientist must be alert to what is importantly 
wrong. It is inappropriate to be concerned about mice when there are tigers 
abroad."

Box, George E. P. (1976)
"Science and 
statistics"<http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Ian.Jermyn/philosophy/writings/Boxonmaths.pdf>
Journal of the American Statistical 
Association<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_American_Statistical_Association>
71 (356): 791-799
doi<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier)>:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949<https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01621459.1976.10480949>

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

________________________________
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or 
privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you 
are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee 
please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, 
retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not 
necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments 
are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you 
may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with 
the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and 
Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and 
Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom


________________________________
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1


########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Reply via email to