Well, I knew I might be jumping off the deep end... since there's a later paragraph or two that takes much the same posture I do toward modeling, and for the right reason, that in nature there are many things changing independently all the time and an essential part of modeling is closely watching what's actually happening. I see more specifically useful observation methods for that than reported, ways of reading the leading signs of structural change, etc., but now I think I'll buy it and see what else might be hiding from me...!
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:54 AM To: 'Pamela McCorduck'; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NYTimes.com: The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies What you can see is the public interest 'hook' in the approach the book took, i.e. 'science is just too complicated, let's do without'. There are indeed a lot of 'solutions' for things that are getting too complicated for practicality, but It's unusual for the Science Times to offer that opinion without mentioning the learning process that science is. Well, that is, except that that's virtually the only kind of coverage the Times or other media give to complexity and natural systems, i.e. wacko off beat references. Really, what gets in the paper on the evolution of change in our world? Nothing at all it seems. I recall a flurry of public interest in the 'singularity' when computers were to equal human minds, and a bunch of other garbage, but not a thing about humanity being an eco-system and causation working by loops of relationships that develop creatively. I wrote the managing editor at the Times just last week complaining about how all the public media seem in deep denial about the major scientific revolution of the 20th century, i.e. that nature's not following formulas. Well, yes, the observation that everything happens by complex processes has not been made into a simple story that everyone involved can agree on yet, but we're looking at real causation and making progress, and the media should be picking up on that. I think they're not because it upsets old views, so denial is the better choice. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Pamela McCorduck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 11:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NYTimes.com: The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies I know the journalist, and know her as very thoughtful. I wonder if stuff got edited out of that piece by someone less thoughtful. On Feb 22, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote: Yea I saw that, and was surprised the journalist had no counter views to offer. Of course there are good shortcuts, of course the divergence of natural systems from models is not just simple statistical error. It sounds a little like the success of his method, though, may have more to do with his not being able to measure his errors though. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FRIAM] NYTimes.com: The Problems in Modeling Nature,With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <head_1.gif> <head_2.gif> <LKOS_88X31_2K.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif>This page was sent to you by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message from sender: "The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies" fyi. Tom Johnson SCIENCE | February 20, 2007 Books on Science: The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies By CORNELIA DEAN A new book argues that nature is too complex and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored to be modeled using computer programs. <spacer.gif><spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <todays.gif> 1. Essay: Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-Mail Misbehavior 2. Housing Market Heats Up Again in New York City 3. Battling Epilepsy, and Its Stigma 4. Anglicans Rebuke U.S. Branch on Same-Sex Unions 5. With One Word, Childrens Book Sets Off Uproar » Go to Complete List <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif>Advertisement The Last King of Scotland Starring Academy Award® Nominee Forest Whitaker. A powerful thriller that recreates the world of Uganda under the mad dictatorship of Idi Amin. Now Playing. Click here to watch trailer <LKOS_120x60_5K.gif> <spacer.gif><spacer.gif> Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy <spacer.gif> <adx_remote.gif>======================================================== ==== 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 "Action is easy; thought is hard." Goethe
============================================================ 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
