JASSS (and despair)
Locked
 
|
The latest issue of Journal of Artificial Societies and Simulation is
available at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070630/5223dd0b/attachment.html |
|
|
Robert Holmes wrote:
> I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, > reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many > papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? I don't see a problem because their study is of _artificial_ societies. The development of math and methods for study of a subclass of abstract processes... |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
Robert,
The discussions earlier this week about the nature of explanation yielded 2 notions about the necessity of historical contingency in modeling. One referred to 'real historical data', that is, the elements of the model reflect a sampling of some actual situation, and can be explained as some abstract transformation between 2 historical data points. The other referred to the idea of understanding the historical situatedness of the modeling methodologies employed, such that one can explain what one is doing and why. It's probably useful to consider these as different kinds of explanation. I have not been reading JASSS lately, except when specific papers get recommended, so can't comment on whether their reviewers are pushing for greater validation against historical data. There was a (humbling) article in the 14 June edition of Nature about mentoring better reviewers . As to the methodology notion about explanation, there could be an idea about the responsibility of authors to employ the history of their methodologies when explaining their results across disciplinary or research group silos. I've been reading Thurston ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/9404/9404236v1.pdf ) about just how difficult this can be (at least for mathematicians) and Corfield ( http://www.dcorfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HowMathematicians.pdf ) about how research groups might formulate their methodologies and programs so they can be effectively communicated. We might take JASSS to task for setting the bar too low, but to be fair the problem may simply be that this kind of modeling is not far enough along as a discipline for its practitioners to have the training and expertise to do the latter kind of explanation. It may also be that thus far it takes most of a given career to get any good at it. In either case these are early days, and it seems to me there is at least the hint of a path, if there is the will to build towards it. Carl Robert Holmes wrote: > The latest issue of Journal of Artificial Societies and Simulation is > available at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html > > I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, > reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many > papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? > > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Ah, if it was just a case of them drawing conclusions about these artificial
societies. Unfortunately the authors explicitly state that their conclusions apply to real societies. In this issue alone they explain the paucity of women in corporate management, the effect of mass media on cultural dynamics, the distribution of land holdings in the Caparo Forest Reserve in Venezuela, and more. These papers all claim that their conclusions explain real world behaviours; all without even the most rudimentary comparison with real measurements. Robert On 6/30/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > Robert Holmes wrote: > > I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, > > reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many > > papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? > I don't see a problem because their study is of _artificial_ > societies. The development of math and methods for study of a subclass > of abstract processes... > > ============================================================ > 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070701/0359b697/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Tollander
I mentioned the Nature link on mentoring below, here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/pdf/447791a.pdf Carl Tollander wrote: > Robert, > > The discussions earlier this week about the nature of explanation > yielded 2 notions about the necessity of historical contingency in > modeling. One referred to 'real historical data', that is, the > elements of the model reflect a sampling of some actual situation, and > can be explained as some abstract transformation between 2 historical > data points. The other referred to the idea of understanding the > historical situatedness of the modeling methodologies employed, such > that one can explain what one is doing and why. It's probably useful > to consider these as different kinds of explanation. > > I have not been reading JASSS lately, except when specific papers get > recommended, so can't comment on whether their reviewers are pushing > for greater validation against historical data. There was a > (humbling) article in the 14 June edition of Nature about mentoring > better reviewers . > > As to the methodology notion about explanation, there could be an idea > about the responsibility of authors to employ the history of their > methodologies when explaining their results across disciplinary or > research group silos. I've been reading Thurston ( > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/9404/9404236v1.pdf ) about just how > difficult this can be (at least for mathematicians) and Corfield ( > http://www.dcorfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HowMathematicians.pdf ) > about how research groups might formulate their methodologies and > programs so they can be effectively communicated. > > We might take JASSS to task for setting the bar too low, but to be > fair the problem may simply be that this kind of modeling is not far > enough along as a discipline for its practitioners to have the > training and expertise to do the latter kind of explanation. It may > also be that thus far it takes most of a given career to get any good > at it. In either case these are early days, and it seems to me there > is at least the hint of a path, if there is the will to build towards it. > > Carl > > Robert Holmes wrote: >> The latest issue of Journal of Artificial Societies and Simulation is >> available at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html >> >> I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, >> reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many >> papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? >> >> 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 > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated,
and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? 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 Robert Holmes Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 10:36 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) Ah, if it was just a case of them drawing conclusions about these artificial societies. Unfortunately the authors explicitly state that their conclusions apply to real societies. In this issue alone they explain the paucity of women in corporate management, the effect of mass media on cultural dynamics, the distribution of land holdings in the Caparo Forest Reserve in Venezuela, and more. These papers all claim that their conclusions explain real world behaviours; all without even the most rudimentary comparison with real measurements. Robert On 6/30/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote: Robert Holmes wrote: > I dunno, after our discussions about the nature of explanation, > reading JASSS left me thoroughly depressed. Want to guess how many > papers compared their simulation results with real historic data? I don't see a problem because their study is of _artificial_ societies. The development of math and methods for study of a subclass of abstract processes... ============================================================ 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/20070703/c8edb720/attachment.html |
|
|
Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer to
your last question is "No". Robert On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, > and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears that > when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing entirely some > network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you say the article > refers to physical systems, is it possible they just switch back and forth > between ways of referring to things, while being consistent with an > 'information world' model they assume everyone understands to be the > baseline of abstract discussion? > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070703/954d0322/attachment.html |
|
|
I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit
anyway --------- The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following abstract: Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the journal is unaware of the difference. Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. 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 Robert Holmes Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer to your last question is "No". Robert On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com> wrote: The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6b468548/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |