Folks--
I'm not anywhere near to level of prediction yet--nor do I expect others to be (we're more at the level of the Chaldean astrologers than Newton at this point--although I do seem to remember something about the futility of Newton being used to fully describe planetary motion of >=3 bodies). What I've been messing about with involve falsification of extant theories in the sense of taking a social science theory (e.g. I've got an article coming out in the next issue of New England Political Science Journal on Gurr's "relative deprivation" hypothesis in the context of the Dark Patch Tobacco Night Riders in the first decade of the 20th century) wherein I set up the relevant theory (ies) in a modeling context and let them play out according to their own rules to see if the predicted outcome squares with the actual record (Gurr, incidentally, seeems in the case study to be fairly effective as an explanation; others--e.g. the dozen+ "single cause" explanations of Shaka Zulu's rise and consequent mfecane all fall woefully short.) So we ain't (at least I ain't) anywhere near prediction, but by george complexity modeling is turning out to be useful in testing theories that on their own faces and terms seem persuasive and potentially misleading (John Lott's "more guns, less crime" proposition, if it operates on its own terms conclusively ends crime within a two year period--thus Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago and the states of Kentucky and Louisiana should, if Lott is correct, be without crime.)
Chris Newman
________________________________
From:
[hidden email] on behalf of Robert Holmes
Sent: Thu 12/9/2004 9:44 PM
To: FRIAM
Subject: [FRIAM] But surely Professor Thompson... (re Wolfram)
...one of the problems with Wolfram-math is it over-privileges the role of metaphor. Yes metaphor is important in the development of theories (and so are dreams and experience and funding and blind good fortune) but it is not a whole load of use in evaluating - and hence ultimately accepting or rejecting - those theories.
If I want to see just how good Newton's laws are at describing the motion of planetary bodies, I take lots of astronomical measurements as accurately as I can and then I compare my predictions with my measurements. What I don't do is look up into the night sky and say "yeah, that looks about right". Which - unfortunately - is pretty much the extent of confirmation that is sought in much of the 'new' science.
Robert
Dr. Robert Holmes
PO Box 2862, Santa Fe, NM 87504
mobile: (505) 310-1735
web: www.holmesacosta.com <file://www.holmesacosta.com>
Locked
