Yes. Modeling is a verb, and a framework is a noun. I concede. Should I say that modeling is the process of creating a framework for understanding?
(Note that circular arguments can be useful, particularly in models of complex systems, as long as the circularity is clear and identified.) My mind rejects circular arguments. I can't help it! Maybe it's genetic. I'm embarrassed when I do it. Multiple meanings for symbols doesn't make the language less accurate or less useful. The more we truly agree on a set of definitions, the more and faster we can communicate. No sane person would abandon Newtonian physics. You don't have to with Relativity. It already includes Newtonian physics. Exactly! But only the gods know what that slimy programmer did when the modeler wasn't looking. LOL Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Howard wrote: > That's what modeling is! A framework for understanding! A tool for > communication! I disagree. Modeling is not _a_ framework. It is the _process_ of building a framework. Modeling is a behavior, not a state. The outcome of modeling is the framework. More specifically, modeling is rhetoric. When you build a model, you are making an argument that proceeds from premises to conclusion. When one uses a pre-existing framework (e.g. continuum math) in which to couch their argument, then one has to ensure that all the assumptions in the framework are satisfied by the rest of the rhetoric. And the argument does not apply if any of those assumptions are not satisfied by the referent. Worse yet, it's inconsistent if any sentence in the argument contradicts one of the others. (Note that circular arguments can be useful, particularly in models of complex systems, as long as the circularity is clear and identified.) > The less constrained a framework is, the less useful it is. No. A less complicated framework is good for less complicated arguments. A more complicated framework is good for more complicated arguments. Both are equally useful depending on what they're being used for. More specifically, a less complicated framework is good for _generalizable_ (abstract) results. A more complicated framework is good for more particular (concrete) results. This is one of the reasons ABM is considered good for very particular (concrete) situations and analytically soluble models are often less applicable. It's also the reason why, if you can achieve them, analytically soluble models are much more powerful than ABMs. (Hence all the yammering we hear about "over-parameterized" or "over-fitted".) > If we have many different interpretations for words and symbols, is not > our language less accurate and useful? We'd spend more time explaining > what our interpretation du jour is and waste time assuming we both are > on the same page when we're really not. No. Multiple meanings for symbols doesn't make the language less accurate or less useful. It only means that an argument, built using the language, must be more specific than the language, itself. Very ambiguous human languages are quite useful and are in no danger of being replaced by unambiguous languages. Further, an argument can be made that the ambiguity in languages makes them _more_ useful than strict languages. Even further, most (perhaps _all_) models that show actual, practical impact on our world are built up using ambiguous human language, not rigid unambiguous ones. Even in those cases where part of the model is rigidly specified with, say, math, the rigid part is bathed in a gloriously ambiguous soup of unending prose. These arguments (sentences) can be excruciatingly detailed even though the symbols in the underlying language are very ambiguous. > A framework is a catalyst for communication! When it inhibits knowledge > transfer, it's abandoned by better ones. Relativity is a more accurate, > useful framework than Newtonian because it adds more constraining rules, > like the space-time invariant and E=MC^2. [grin] No _sane_ person would abandon Newtonian physics. Instead, what we do is use one when it's appropriate and the other when it's appropriate. Appropriateness is determined in our usual ambiguous way. > A good constrained framework prevents a modeler from putting a square > peg in a round hole. The less constrained ones allow more entropy. Exactly! But only the gods know what that slimy programmer did when the modeler wasn't looking. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves. -- Robert Anton Wilson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGZKnMZeB+vOTnLkoRAk0eAJ0T9bOkJwpuVg5pb1jYpbVo/iTvdACfbmDC useMaG6WTTvQsLdukq7JkyM= =uhQq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ 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
============================================================ 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
