Friam

Article on Epstein

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

Michael Agar

Article on Epstein

Good Lord. A shocking line to encounter on arrival in a Florida motel.

(That might be a way to start a Carl Hiassen mystery.)

Probably the most interesting things that go on in workshops for
social/behavioral researchers who know a lot about their area but little
about complexity/ABM is in the discussion space between domain knowledge
and the concept of an ABM. Don't know what to call it, but it's got
something to do with clarity and creativity that feeds back into their
domain.

This thread would make an interesting Wedtech conversation.

Mike

>>> robert at holmesacosta.com 06/26/07 7:24 PM >>>
Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field research
I
guess.

IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social behaviour. All
it
can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is important) is
offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be confirmed
or
denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field research
program.

I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic behind the
a
sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro rules
to
checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an unexpected
macro
behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the macro
rules
then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to
behaviour
of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.

Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't as
upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is in
his
email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd like
more
than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid, honest.
It
doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that the leap
in
(iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the literature? As I
suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that could
generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed
comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the Ancestral
Pueblo
study is the exception rather than the rule.

And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.

Robert

Douglas Roberts-2

Article on Epstein

Josh presented this work to us at our of our NIH MIDAS meetings not too long
ago. Interesting stuff, but I frankly don't see what all the FRIAMers are
so agog about. We've all known for a while that interesting behaviors can
be observed from even the most simple A-Life CA simulations (note that is
did not use the word "emerge" once in the above sentence. Up until this
point, that is).

What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get off on how
simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results, rather than
getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big, *really* complex
societal models, and to then use them to do *really* big and complex
simulation studies.

This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it is quite
interesting, and he is a very good presenter. It's just that after I see a
set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a very simple
artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more realistic, higher
resolution one can do.

I understand Josh's motivations for doing simple simulations. As he states
in the article, "the trick [was] to get a lot *out*, while putting in as
little as possible", which is cool, sure. To me, however it's all about
putting as much in as can be rationally justified, and then turning the
crank to see what pops out.

Michael A: I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech topic.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On 6/27/07, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote:

>
> Good Lord. A shocking line to encounter on arrival in a Florida motel.
>
> (That might be a way to start a Carl Hiassen mystery.)
>
> Probably the most interesting things that go on in workshops for
> social/behavioral researchers who know a lot about their area but little
> about complexity/ABM is in the discussion space between domain knowledge
> and the concept of an ABM. Don't know what to call it, but it's got
> something to do with clarity and creativity that feeds back into their
> domain.
>
> This thread would make an interesting Wedtech conversation.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >>> robert at holmesacosta.com 06/26/07 7:24 PM >>>
> Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field research
> I
> guess.
>
> IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social behaviour. All
> it
> can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is important) is
> offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be confirmed
> or
> denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field research
> program.
>
> I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic behind the
> a
> sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro rules
> to
> checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an unexpected
> macro
> behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the macro
> rules
> then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to
> behaviour
> of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.
>
> Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't as
> upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is in
> his
> email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd like
> more
> than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid, honest.
> It
> doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that the leap
> in
> (iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the literature? As I
> suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that could
> generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed
> comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the Ancestral
> Pueblo
> study is the exception rather than the rule.
>
> And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.
>
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070627/75c41992/attachment.html

Richard Harris-2

Article on Epstein

Well, sitting here in the peanut gallery, I think one of the virtues of
small, minimalist models is that they retain at least the option of
having some explanatory value.

I've seen too many instances where people naively try to capture as much
of reality as they percieve in their models, and the only result is a
muddled mess which has zero explanatory value. Even if its not a muddled
mess, and the modeler has avoided making too many arbitrary choices, you
still have to contend with the bounded rationality and understanding of
your audience.

I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
you can't explain something, what's the point?

Rich

I've seen too many occasions when a

Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Josh presented this work to us at our of our NIH MIDAS meetings not
> too long ago. Interesting stuff, but I frankly don't see what all the
> FRIAMers are so agog about. We've all known for a while that
> interesting behaviors can be observed from even the most simple A-Life
> CA simulations (note that is did not use the word "emerge" once in the
> above sentence. Up until this point, that is).
>
> What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get off
> on how simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results,
> rather than getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big,
> *really* complex societal models, and to then use them to do *really*
> big and complex simulation studies.
>
> This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it is
> quite interesting, and he is a very good presenter. It's just that
> after I see a set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a
> very simple artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more
> realistic, higher resolution one can do.
>
> I understand Josh's motivations for doing simple simulations. As he
> states in the article, "the trick [was] to get a lot /out/, while
> putting in as little as possible", which is cool, sure. To me,
> however it's all about putting as much in as can be rationally
> justified, and then turning the crank to see what pops out.
>
> Michael A: I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech topic.
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 6/27/07, *Michael Agar* <magar at anth.umd.edu
> <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu>> wrote:
>
> Good Lord. A shocking line to encounter on arrival in a Florida
> motel.
>
> (That might be a way to start a Carl Hiassen mystery.)
>
> Probably the most interesting things that go on in workshops for
> social/behavioral researchers who know a lot about their area but
> little
> about complexity/ABM is in the discussion space between domain
> knowledge
> and the concept of an ABM. Don't know what to call it, but it's got
> something to do with clarity and creativity that feeds back into their
> domain.
>
> This thread would make an interesting Wedtech conversation.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >>> robert at holmesacosta.com <mailto:robert at holmesacosta.com>
> 06/26/07 7:24 PM >>>
> Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field
> research
> I
> guess.
>
> IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social
> behaviour. All
> it
> can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is
> important) is
> offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be
> confirmed
> or
> denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field
> research
> program.
>
> I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic
> behind the
> a
> sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro
> rules
> to
> checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an unexpected
> macro
> behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the macro
> rules
> then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to
> behaviour
> of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.
>
> Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't as
> upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is in
> his
> email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd like
> more
> than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid, honest.
> It
> doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that
> the leap
> in
> (iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the
> literature? As I
> suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that could
> generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed
> comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the Ancestral
> Pueblo
> study is the exception rather than the rule.
>
> And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.
>
> 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

Owen Densmore

Article on Epstein

Administrator

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

On Jun 27, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> ...
> What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get
> off on how
> simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results,
> rather than
> getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big, *really*
> complex
> societal models, and to then use them to do *really* big and complex
> simulation studies.

I'm reading one of the new spate of complexity books that are *not*
"popular" books .. they go into more detail and have, gasp,
*equations*. Its Nino Boccara's "Modeling Complex Systems".

He distinguishes between simulations and models and on page 5 quotes
from John Maynard Smith "Models in Ecology":

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Firefox003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 53742 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070627/f4dfed9a/attachment.jpg
-------------- next part --------------

> This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it
> is quite
> interesting, and he is a very good presenter. It's just that after
> I see a
> set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a very simple
> artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more realistic,
> higher
> resolution one can do.

I agree, its been a good year for redfish going into much more
interesting models .. simulations by the above. Using GIS rather
than grids, getting into interesting 3D, even using Google Earth as a
display .. and naturally the sandbox.

I wish it were easier, none the less, to create these critters
without spending such a huge amount of time on them. Not at all
clear to me that the cost/benefit trade off is in our favor yet.

> Michael A: I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech
> topic.

Me too .. and maybe at today's Tesoro version we can chat about it a
bit.

> --Doug

-- Owen

Douglas Roberts-2

Article on Epstein

In reply to this post by Richard Harris-2

That's what an experimental design is for. Without a plan to rationally
vary parameters of the simulation, there is no hope to determine cause and
effect relationships. A good experimental design will define a series of
parameter sweep runs, the results of which can then be analyzed.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On 6/27/07, Richard Harris <rich at redfish.com> wrote:

>
> Well, sitting here in the peanut gallery, I think one of the virtues of
> small, minimalist models is that they retain at least the option of
> having some explanatory value.
>
> I've seen too many instances where people naively try to capture as much
> of reality as they percieve in their models, and the only result is a
> muddled mess which has zero explanatory value. Even if its not a muddled
> mess, and the modeler has avoided making too many arbitrary choices, you
> still have to contend with the bounded rationality and understanding of
> your audience.
>
> I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
> and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
> you can't explain something, what's the point?
>
> Rich
>
>
> I've seen too many occasions when a
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > Josh presented this work to us at our of our NIH MIDAS meetings not
> > too long ago. Interesting stuff, but I frankly don't see what all the
> > FRIAMers are so agog about. We've all known for a while that
> > interesting behaviors can be observed from even the most simple A-Life
> > CA simulations (note that is did not use the word "emerge" once in the
> > above sentence. Up until this point, that is).
> >
> > What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get off
> > on how simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results,
> > rather than getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big,
> > *really* complex societal models, and to then use them to do *really*
> > big and complex simulation studies.
> >
> > This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it is
> > quite interesting, and he is a very good presenter. It's just that
> > after I see a set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a
> > very simple artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more
> > realistic, higher resolution one can do.
> >
> > I understand Josh's motivations for doing simple simulations. As he
> > states in the article, "the trick [was] to get a lot /out/, while
> > putting in as little as possible", which is cool, sure. To me,
> > however it's all about putting as much in as can be rationally
> > justified, and then turning the crank to see what pops out.
> >
> > Michael A: I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech
> topic.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> > doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > On 6/27/07, *Michael Agar* <magar at anth.umd.edu
> > <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > Good Lord. A shocking line to encounter on arrival in a Florida
> > motel.
> >
> > (That might be a way to start a Carl Hiassen mystery.)
> >
> > Probably the most interesting things that go on in workshops for
> > social/behavioral researchers who know a lot about their area but
> > little
> > about complexity/ABM is in the discussion space between domain
> > knowledge
> > and the concept of an ABM. Don't know what to call it, but it's got
> > something to do with clarity and creativity that feeds back into
> their
> > domain.
> >
> > This thread would make an interesting Wedtech conversation.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > >>> robert at holmesacosta.com <mailto:robert at holmesacosta.com>
> > 06/26/07 7:24 PM >>>
> > Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field
> > research
> > I
> > guess.
> >
> > IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social
> > behaviour. All
> > it
> > can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is
> > important) is
> > offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be
> > confirmed
> > or
> > denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field
> > research
> > program.
> >
> > I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic
> > behind the
> > a
> > sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro
> > rules
> > to
> > checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an unexpected
> > macro
> > behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the
> macro
> > rules
> > then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to
> > behaviour
> > of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.
> >
> > Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't
> as
> > upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is
> in
> > his
> > email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd like
> > more
> > than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid,
> honest.
> > It
> > doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that
> > the leap
> > in
> > (iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the
> > literature? As I
> > suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that
> could
> > generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed
> > comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the Ancestral
> > Pueblo
> > study is the exception rather than the rule.
> >
> > And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.
> >
> > 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070627/fe656416/attachment.html

glen ep ropella

Article on Epstein

In reply to this post by Richard Harris-2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Harris wrote:
> I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
> and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
> you can't explain something, what's the point?

This is an excellent point and is the primary cause for much angst and
hand-wringing (as well as pompous diatribes about things like parsimony,
over-parameterization, validation and verification, etc.) in the
simulation community.

At the end of the day, there's only one reason to develop models: to
help you think. Models do not predict, explain, or describe (or any
other verb) the real world. _People_ predict, explain, and describe.
Models are like rocks or trees. They're just more stuff meandering
about in the ambient goo around us. As such, I (a person believe it or
not ;-) can use a rock to predict some phenomenon. Or I can use a model
to predict some phenomenon.

So, the basic answer to your question: "If you can't explain something,
what's the point?" Well, the point has to be derived from whoever is
using the model. If the person is attempting to explain something with
a model, then if the model doesn't help the _person_ explain that thing,
then it's a misuse of the model. Likewise, if a person is attempting to
predict something with a model and the model doesn't help the person
predict anything, then it's a misuse of the model.

Models are thinking tools, nothing more nor less.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
... given any rule, however "fundamental" or "necessary" for science,
there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore
the rule, but to adopt its opposite. -- Paul Feyerabend

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGgqpmZeB+vOTnLkoRAuVmAJ4hZzBX+wwOJQ/YOnF3pfQQRBBXnQCg2Cnb
cDL+pDzThosA0DZbClzFpII=
=/9bE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marcus G. Daniels

Article on Epstein

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> At the end of the day, there's only one reason to develop models: to
> help you think.
Yes, to help you think about something else. A model won't help with
that unless it actually is adequately realistic and predictive in ways
that matter.

Phil Henshaw-2

Article on Epstein

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

The point to me of 'varying the parameters' of the model is to better
read the fine detail of the physical subject. The model is just
information, not the thing you're trying to understand that is doing the
actual behaving. You can watch the fine detail of how physical systems
work a lot better if there is a little consistent 'discrepancy' in your
model, if you can see it's artificiality, and that difference tends to
be well hidden if your parameters are adjusted in a way intended to hide
the difference.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Article on Epstein

That's what an experimental design is for. Without a plan to rationally
vary parameters of the simulation, there is no hope to determine cause
and effect relationships. A good experimental design will define a
series of parameter sweep runs, the results of which can then be
analyzed.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
droberts at rti.org
doug at parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On 6/27/07, Richard Harris <rich at redfish.com> wrote:

Well, sitting here in the peanut gallery, I think one of the virtues of
small, minimalist models is that they retain at least the option of
having some explanatory value.

I've seen too many instances where people naively try to capture as much

of reality as they percieve in their models, and the only result is a
muddled mess which has zero explanatory value. Even if its not a muddled
mess, and the modeler has avoided making too many arbitrary choices, you

still have to contend with the bounded rationality and understanding of
your audience.

I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
you can't explain something, what's the point?

Rich

I've seen too many occasions when a

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Josh presented this work to us at our of our NIH MIDAS meetings not
> too long ago. Interesting stuff, but I frankly don't see what all the
> FRIAMers are so agog about. We've all known for a while that
> interesting behaviors can be observed from even the most simple A-Life

> CA simulations (note that is did not use the word "emerge" once in the
> above sentence. Up until this point, that is).
>
> What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get off
> on how simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results,
> rather than getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big,
> *really* complex societal models, and to then use them to do *really*
> big and complex simulation studies.
>
> This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it is
> quite interesting, and he is a very good presenter. It's just that
> after I see a set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a
> very simple artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more
> realistic, higher resolution one can do.
>
> I understand Josh's motivations for doing simple simulations. As he
> states in the article, "the trick [was] to get a lot /out/, while
> putting in as little as possible", which is cool, sure. To me,
> however it's all about putting as much in as can be rationally
> justified, and then turning the crank to see what pops out.
>
> Michael A: I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech

topic.

>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org> <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 6/27/07, *Michael Agar* <magar at anth.umd.edu
> <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu> >> wrote:
>
> Good Lord. A shocking line to encounter on arrival in a Florida
> motel.
>
> (That might be a way to start a Carl Hiassen mystery.)
>
> Probably the most interesting things that go on in workshops for
> social/behavioral researchers who know a lot about their area but
> little
> about complexity/ABM is in the discussion space between domain
> knowledge
> and the concept of an ABM. Don't know what to call it, but it's

got
> something to do with clarity and creativity that feeds back into
their

> domain.
>
> This thread would make an interesting Wedtech conversation.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >>> robert at holmesacosta.com <mailto:robert at holmesacosta.com>
> 06/26/07 7:24 PM >>>
> Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field
> research
> I
> guess.
>
> IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social
> behaviour. All
> it
> can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is
> important) is
> offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be
> confirmed
> or
> denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field
> research
> program.
>
> I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic
> behind the
> a
> sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro
> rules
> to
> checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an

unexpected
> macro
> behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the
macro
> rules
> then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to
> behaviour
> of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.
>
> Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't
as
> upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is
in
> his
> email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd
like
> more
> than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid,
honest.
> It
> doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that
> the leap
> in
> (iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the
> literature? As I
> suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that
could
> generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed

> comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the
Ancestral

> Pueblo
> study is the exception rather than the rule.
>
> And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.
>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070629/0f368f13/attachment.html