The root of many problems lies not in the [economic] models themselves but in the
way in which they are used. Too often we ask "What will happen?",
trapping us into the mug's game of prediction, when the real question
should be: "Given that we cannot predict, what is our best move today?"...Instead of determining the "best" model that solves optimal strategies
we should instead seek the most "robust" model that achieves a given
level of "goodness" across myriad models and uses assumptions
consistent with known facts. My colleagues and I use such methods to
address intractable policy issues fraught with arguments over which
model is "right", what assumptions are valid and what is the nature of
the good? This method makes the decision to be informed part of the
analysis itself and the results are more readily accepted by
policymakers.
That was from a senior economist at RAND. So it looks as if at least some members of the current military-industrial complex are using simulations in a sensible and valid way (certainly with more sense and validity than a lot of the academic papers I see).
So if 'valid' simulations are being used to give the 'wrong' answers, what does that tell us about simulation? Is there ever any hope of objectivity (I'll give away the answer to that: no) or do all social simulations - political or economic - inevitably reflect the prejudices of their author or funder?
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
