Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
Apr 12, 2010; 9:37pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/leadership-in-flocks-tp4868514p4892830.html
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-04-10 10:16 AM:
> Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force
> complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.
Yes, we definitely _do_ when the validation data indicates that the more
complex mechanisms actually exist, as with the nature article.
The trouble with parsimony as you're applying it in the above sentence
is that you've abstracted out a particular phenomenon and intend to
build a model to mimic only that particular phenomenon. This
linearization of the system (and model) ignores lots of data regarding
other related phenomena. I.e. you're abstracting out a simple
(non-complex) phenomena and mimicking it with a simple model. That's
not science so much as it's engineering or math.
Science has to consider all the available data, even data sets that are
incommensurate with each other. This requires concrete models and is
why most scientists are intent on designing experiments with the "actual
stuff" and only want to use computational models sparingly or in special
cases.
Simple one's do not suffice in the concrete world of actual flocks of
birds. Actual flocks _have_ all the complicating detail and the extent
to which that complicating detail can be removed or controlled is very
limited. That's why the Nature article is more powerful and meaningful
than the JASSS article.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com============================================================
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