this guy is an economist who seems to use models to prove their falibility (& has other great concepts like WMEs - weapons of mass exploitation): http://02ae523.netsolhost.com/Home.htm
h : ) On 2/11/11 11:03 PM, ruth catlow wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I have been pondering and wondering along this line of thought for a > while too. > > We watched Copenhagen a couple of nights ago - a play by Michael Frayne > that takes as its basis, the mystery surrounding the wartime meeting of > Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. > > In the play Heisenberg says something like... > > 'applying maths to people is always interesting. 1+1 can equal so many > different kinds of 2.' > > I note in all large institutions a move towards measuring things because > they can be measured - the data is then often presented as if there is > only one kind of '2'. (the equations lend great swagger potential). > > Diagrams (I suppose some of these are just another expression of > equations) are just as dangerous. > > I got myself- continue to get myself into all kinds of trouble taking > network topologies too literally. > > After all most social networks are not flat. A node is not a node is not > a node and the links between nodes have different resistances and > qualities (again whether social or material). > > > > > Even if you have a perfect economic model with perfect data, calibrating > the model doesn't have a single answer. So even in a perfect world, > economic models can and will give incorrect answers.. > > < > > My feeling is that economists understand this very well and that their > models are systems for gaining and maintaining temporary advantage- just > keep moving fast, inventing new refinements of the tools that only you > have access to. > > is it that scary? > > : ? > Ruth > btw ps. if anyone has a copy of the Copenhagen play I'd really like the > exact quote. > > > > On 31/10/2011 20:18, Rob Myers wrote: >> As a child I could never work out what a + b = c meant. I mean what >> should a and b and c *be*? Of course the answer is that they have any >> number of possible values. That's the power of equations. But when you >> are trying to fit equations to reality, it can be a problem: >> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong >> >> Even if you have a perfect economic model with perfect data, calibrating >> the model doesn't have a single answer. So even in a perfect world, >> economic models can and will give incorrect answers. >> >> Bear in mind that both the financialized, high-frequency-trading, casino >> capitalism side of the economy and the >> government-management-of-the-economy side are based on ever more complex >> models. >> >> And I think there's a more general problem that this illustrates. >> Presumably it's not just economics but philosophy, politics, theology, >> aesthetics, any kind of quantitative model of reality will suffer from >> this problem. >> >> Which is a scary thought. >> >> - Rob. >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ____________________________________________________________ helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst [email protected] http://www.creative-catalyst.com http://www.avatarbodycollision.org http://www.upstage.org.nz ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
