Article on Epstein

Posted by Richard Harris-2 on Jun 27, 2007; 4:33pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Article-on-Epstein-tp524125p524127.html

Well, sitting here in the peanut gallery, I think one of the virtues of
small, minimalist models is that they retain at least the option of
having some explanatory value.

I've seen too many instances where people naively try to capture as much
of reality as they percieve in their models, and the only result is a
muddled mess which has zero explanatory value. Even if its not a muddled
mess, and the modeler has avoided making too many arbitrary choices, you
still have to contend with the bounded rationality and understanding of
your audience.

I've seen models which could require hundreds of pages to fully describe
and required massive supercomputers to run. At the end of they day, if
you can't explain something, what's the point?

Rich


I've seen too many occasions when a

Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Josh presented this work to us at our of our NIH MIDAS meetings not
> too long ago.  Interesting stuff, but I frankly don't see what all the
> FRIAMers are so agog about.  We've all known for a while that
> interesting behaviors can be observed from even the most simple A-Life
> CA simulations (note that is did not use the word "emerge" once in the
> above sentence.  Up until this point, that is).
>
> What befuddles me is how much 'complexity scientists' seem to get off
> on how simple simulations can sometimes produce interesting results,
> rather than getting sufficiently cranked up to write *really* big,
> *really* complex societal models, and to then use them to do *really*
> big and complex simulation studies.
>
> This is not meant to imply any criticism against Josh's work -- it is
> quite interesting, and he is a very good presenter.  It's just that
> after I see a set of simulation results for a simple simulation of a
> very simple artificial society, it makes me want to see what a more
> realistic, higher resolution one can do.
>
> I understand Josh's motivations for doing simple simulations.  As he
> states in the article, "the trick [was] to get a lot /out/, while
> putting in as little as possible", which is cool, sure.  To me,
> however it's all about putting as much in as can be rationally
> justified, and then turning the crank to see what pops out.
>
> Michael A:  I agree, this thread would make an interesting WedTech topic.
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org>
> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 6/27/07, *Michael Agar* <magar at anth.umd.edu
> <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>     ============================================================
>     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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> 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