Kudos to the social scientists

[Paul Paryski]

The ethical use of applied complexity and agent based modeling is an issue  
that deserves critical and thoughtful debate. Is it ethical to use these tools  
to further destruction in Iraq or Afghanistan or to use data mining to spy on
 private individuals?
 
Paul



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071008/2c1cb85a/attachment.html 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:
> The ethical use of applied complexity and agent based modeling is an
> issue that deserves critical and thoughtful debate. Is it ethical to
> use these tools to further destruction in Iraq or Afghanistan or to
> use data mining to spy on private individuals?
One concern I have about the use of agent models is that it can easily
amount to "let's make an accusation and see if it sticks" where sticking
is often poorly defined in the wrong hands.    If a model's results can
be interpreted in a lot of ways, and decision makers have an affinity
for a certain one (e.g. a political or ideological motive), then it just
becomes a tool for rationalizing actions.    Writing simulations is
largely programming and programming tends to be a goal oriented thing..

Marcus

[glen ep ropella]

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

PPARYSKI at aol.com wrote:
> The ethical use of applied complexity and agent based modeling is an
> issue that deserves critical and thoughtful debate. Is it ethical to use
> these tools to further destruction in Iraq or Afghanistan or to use data
> mining to spy on private individuals?

Well, I think you've installed the conclusion into the question!
Phrasing it:  "Is it ethical to use these tools to further _destruction_
... to _spy_ on private individuals?"  You may as well ask "Is it
ethical to destroy and spy?"

The question would be more answerable if you asked something more like:
 "Is it ethical to use these tools to achieve military objectives or to
implement domestic policies?"

The problem is that the answer to such a question depends directly on
the particular objectives and policies as well as the ethics of the
individuals using the tools.

My answer, as usual, is that one cannot know the consequences of using a
tool until and unless the tool is used.  Hence, one cannot answer this
ethical question until the tool has been used in those contexts.

By extension, if these tools have the slightest chance of making the
world a better place, then we have an ethical obligation to use them for
military objectives and the implementation of domestic policies.... if
for no other reason than to determine their effect, which is required
for us to make an ethical evaluation of their use.

However, I would suggest a little restraint in their use.  I.e. they
should be used in some experimental cost/benefit evaluation phase to
determine their effect in those restrained applications.  It then
becomes easier to extrapolate to the ethical consequences of using them
in some large scale.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the
support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw

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

iD8DBQFHCpUQZeB+vOTnLkoRAmaaAJ9pFbCzE1Fd3CtorfNsinTXH+jGBgCeOiDp
fdFjoERM36N4BByQ+dS9FUk=
=8fCo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[glen ep ropella]

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

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> One concern I have about the use of agent models is that it can easily
> amount to "let's make an accusation and see if it sticks" where sticking
> is often poorly defined in the wrong hands.    If a model's results can
> be interpreted in a lot of ways, and decision makers have an affinity
> for a certain one (e.g. a political or ideological motive), then it just
> becomes a tool for rationalizing actions.    Writing simulations is
> largely programming and programming tends to be a goal oriented thing..

But the ethical issues that result from such are exactly the same as
those for any reasoning system, including those of ancient China and
Greece.  So, there's nothing new about using rhetoric to foist one's
opinion on the world.  Modeling (not simulation*) is a form of rhetoric,
which carries the ethical problems you bring up.

The idea that models are somehow more dangerous than, say, persuasive
writing, is wrong, though.  One might argue that the occult mechanisms
hidden inside an implemented model are more nefarious than the rather
hollow feel of a NYT editorial.  After all, humans are attracted to
pretty blinking dots.  But, ultimately, only the skeptics will challenge
either.  A non-skeptic will just as readily cite a yammer-head at the
NYT as they would a complicated model.  And, overall, the world has very
few skeptics.  Hence, models are square equivalents to op-ed articles
and there are no new ethical issues there.



(*) Simulations are concrete objects and, hence, are fundamentally
distinct from programs and full models, which are forms of rhetoric.  A
simulation is not a model in and of itself.  A model may _contain_ (use
or consist of) a simulation; but a model must be more than just a
simulation.  Hence simulations do NOT necessarily have the same ethical
consequences as rhetoric.  But, programs and whole models do have the
same ethical consequences as rhetoric.  The ethical consequences of
simulation is the same as that of any other concrete tool like hammers,
engines, and bombs.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Think not those faithful who praise all thy words and actions; but those
who kindly reprove thy faults. -- Socrates

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

iD8DBQFHC6X2ZeB+vOTnLkoRAlqfAKDSaMK7niHi29sfQ4rK5hO8D60L3QCdHrQv
TzW/7tESATGiwm+Bo0SLdco=
=oUFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> (*) Simulations are concrete objects and, hence, are fundamentally
> distinct from programs and full models, which are forms of rhetoric.  A
> simulation is not a model in and of itself.  
The simulation (the concrete thing that is apparently detached from
human rhetoric) can serve as a dazzling bluff to say that model
assumptions have been scrutinized when they may not have been.    It's
potentially a deeper sort of deception or delusion.  I'm not saying
there is a technical or conceptual problem here with ABM, just that it
is a technique that is perhaps more obvious how to abuse than others.

Marcus

[glen ep ropella]

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

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> The simulation (the concrete thing that is apparently detached from
> human rhetoric) can serve as a dazzling bluff to say that model
> assumptions have been scrutinized when they may not have been.    It's
> potentially a deeper sort of deception or delusion.  I'm not saying
> there is a technical or conceptual problem here with ABM, just that it
> is a technique that is perhaps more obvious how to abuse than others.

I could buy that it's easier to impress the masses of the unenlightened
with blinking lights than it is to impress them with words.  After all,
it takes a very skilled wordsmith like MLK Jr to seriously move humans
with language.  All it takes to create some blinking lights is a
"simulation toolkit" and the ability to follow instructions.

But, I don't think the subsequent delusion/deception is deeper in any
real sense.  The rhetorical "magic" is simply available to more people.

It's very analogous to the printing press.  Prior to it, one had to do a
lot of work to convince others that one's words were worth copying...
when copying that work was a huge and difficult task, hiring clerics,
memorizing poems and such.  After the printing press, any yahoo with a
little money could work the machine and generate piles of arguments.

So, rather than deeper delusion/deception, I think what we'll see is a
higher quantity of delusion/deception but a lower _quality_ of
delusion/deception.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. -- Voltaire

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

iD8DBQFHC77UZeB+vOTnLkoRAkCjAJ97o0+FWx1zy8D6L2mF/VVFL/WVhwCfZcx9
Hr1qSxkoC/wcs849krlLyKE=
=AkWF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----