Miscellaneous responses below... -- Robert On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote:
> Robert, > <snip> > I DID play with the model! Although you are the last person I would want > to go up against on such a geek matter, I *think *it performs pretty much > as the paper describes. In fact, I have it running at this very moment. > Percent similar *sought* is set to 85, average percent similar *achieved*is > running around 50 percent and > *everybody* is unhappy. There is, I think, a dramatic phase change between > 70 percent sought and 80 percent sought, in fact, now that I explore it, > between 75 and 76%. > <snip> > Ah, there's your problem - you can probably only use this model in a limited range of %-similar-wanted. I suspect that at high values of %-similar-wanted there simply aren't enough turtles of the other color to give the target %-similar-wanted. Is that phase change at 75% an artefact of the model? To me, the fact that 75% = (an integer)/(the number of neighbors) -- specifically 6/8 -- suggests that it is an artefact. I'd be REALLY surprised if this phase change corresponded to something in the real world. > ===>Hempels' symmetry of explanation and prediction has been dead and > buried for years so really can't be used to support any argument; <=== > > I think the paper puts it around the other way: that scientific practice > supports Hempel, not other way around. "Precisely the same point holds > for the other examples—which, collectively, serve to confirm, not undermine, > Carl Hempel's sixty-year old "Symmetry Thesis" concerning explanatory and > predictive power (Hempel > 1948<http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html#hempel1948> > )."Can you think of any examples of good scientific theories that do not > provide good, clear, expectations of observation? > No I can't, but that's not actually the symmetry issue with Hempel. I'll stick that in another email once I've had time to think it out properly. > > ===>hypothesizing micro-rules in models is actually > a perfectly reasonable thing to do;<=== > > I think I agree; where do Derr and I contradict this assertion? > Para 1.5: "Models are chosen or designed to be in accord with what is already known about the phenomenon we are trying to explain." But consider flocking models: we ignore what is already known (or don't attempt to find out what is known) and instead hypothesize that we can get flock like patterns using the three rules (i) avoid collision (ii) align direction (iii) align speed. In actual fact, from the papers Steve posted earlier this week it actually looks like the rules going through the creatures' brains are (i) pursue thing in front and (ii) escape from the thing behind. Actually, perhaps your statement is the more accurate: a good model is one that IS based on known micro-rules; making up the micro-rules (which is what we usually do in an ABM) is actually cheating... > > ===>the burden-of-proof should rest with the modeler, not with anyone who > dares to disagree with her.<=== > Para 1.7: "How can this counter intuitive result come about? Is it just an artifact of all the artificialities in the contrived model? Or does the model point to some fundamental flaw in our thinking about segregation? Modelers would rightfully claim the latter." (emphasis added). That last sentence is an awfully big claim and is why I'd say that the burden-of-proof rests with the modeler. e.g. I should not be expected to consider your 75% phase change above as a real-world effect - the burden would be very much on you to show that it was not a model artefact. > Again, not clear what you have in mind, here, or how it stands in > contradiction to Derr and Thompson. > > Thanks for the comments, > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Robert Holmes <[email protected]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> > *Sent:* 2/1/2009 1:20:35 PM > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Contra Thompson: problems with the explanation > ofexplanations > > Although I agree with the overall tenor of Nick's "Contra Epstein" piece ( > http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/9.html), there's one glaring > error: Schelling's segregation model is completely misrepresented. The > notion that segregation decreases as the individuals' desire to be > segregated increases is wrong. Nick - have a play with the Netlogo model! As > you increase the "%-similar-wanted" slider, the end-point of the > "percent-similar" plot get closer to 100%. It does NOT suddenly start > dropping. The interesting point that the model illuminates is that you need > surprisingly low values of "%-similar-wanted" to generate high "percent > similar" environments. > > Robert > > P.S. There's some other parts of the paper I'd argue with, viz: > > 1. Hempels' symmetry of explanation and prediction has been dead and > buried for years so really can't be used to support any argument; > 2. hypothesizing micro-rules in models is actually > a perfectly reasonable thing to do; > 3. the burden-of-proof should rest with the modeler, not with anyone > who dares to disagree with her. > > ...but having already demolished 40% of Nick's paper, I thought I'd better > give it a rest :-) Nick - buy me a coffee and I'll give you details! > > > ============================================================ > 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
