Jim, Actually, I wasnt entirely clear what the controversy was and was more concerned by how a Great Man like Epstein might be used as the authority for unbearable round of obscurantist blather about how one could have "understanding" without being able to generate any reasonable expectations about the state of the world. Think about it: a phalanx of post-modernists led by Joshua Epstein. If you think I am being paranoid, you only have to remember what silly hay was made of Kuhn's philosophy of science or, for that matter, einstein's relativity.
Anyway: have a look at Epstein's original article and see if it doesnt inspire similar worries in you. Note that he has written a much longer work on "generative" science, as if all science were not generative. I get the impression he keeps meeting idiots at cocktail parties, and thinks of these idiots as representative of the way the sane world think of the relation between agent based modeling and other forms of scientific thinking. Agent based modeling is no more subject to the fallacies of induction or the fallacy of affirming the consequent than any other form of modeling. Take care, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) > [Original Message] > From: Jim Gattiker <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/31/2009 12:19:11 PM > Subject: Fwd: [FRIAM] Latest issue of JASSS appears to contain a nugget > > > And lets not overlook the brewing dogfight on prediction: > > - Contra Epstein, Good Explanations Predict (our own Nick Thompson) > > - Not All Explanations Predict Satisfactorily, and Not All Good Predictions Explain > > What's the controversy? > > On the first, I suppose one could drum something up over unstated > definitions of "good". After all, if we can't argue over semantics, > what can we argue over? > > I can't construe anything difficult about the second one at all. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:15 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Latest issue of JASSS appears to contain a nugget > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > > And lets not overlook the brewing dogfight on prediction: > - Contra Epstein, Good Explanations Predict (our own Nick Thompson) > - Not All Explanations Predict Satisfactorily, and Not All Good > Predictions Explain > > Also..cast your vote for pdf vs html for paper formats! > > Great stuff. > > -- Owen > > > On Jan 31, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > > Amongst the usual plethora of validation-by-kinda-looks-like papers in this > > month's JASSS is a paper that looks like it might be useful: *"**Techniques > > to Understand Computer Simulations: Markov Chain Analysis"* > > http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/6.html. The paper includes the source > > code for the 10 "classic" ABMs that they consider. > > > > 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 > > > ============================================================ > 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
