Article on Epstein

Posted by Michael Agar on Jun 27, 2007; 11:40am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Article-on-Epstein-tp524125.html

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