Found this interesting, about the failings of models,
-
I don't know any models... I'd have to go for actresses instead, except they all seem to be vegetarians, and that creeps me out a little.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
vegetarians, and that creeps me out a little.
What's so creepy about being a vegetarian?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
vegetarians, and that creeps me out a little.
What's so creepy about being a vegetarian?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Just a personal gripe, really.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You have this hang-up on "models"... A model is s simulation... That's it. You use observation and/or experiments to figure out the starting condition and the rules, then let your computer play the game to its logical conclusion. When there are dozens of complicated factors affecting a system, you can't always simplify it to one magical formula. And yes, if you plug in the wrong "rules", or miss an important one, or over/underestimate the effect of one of the factors, you'll get incorrect results. This is obvious and well-understood. Every model depends on its inputs being correct, just as any non-simulated experiment depends on its measurements being accurate. But what's more useful, when trying to figure out a complex system? A) "Our model predicted X, given inputs A, B, and C. This should be accurate, assuming our inputs were correct." B) "I dunno... This is too hard... I'm gonna go play video games instead!" You use the tools and information you have available. If, in the future, you get better tools or more information, you revise your model/experiment and produce a better result.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You have this hang-up on "models"
I've never seen it. He does have a hang-up on those who ignore the fact that they have not, as yet, created a model that can predict climate changes, weather changes, or temperature changes with any degree of accuracy. He talks about models because of the array of predictions that have been used to get large amounts of funding and justify the transfer of much wealth that have been proved - over and over again - to be wrong. In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies. You may find his harping on the subject to be tiresome - I do myself at times - but the use of strawman arguments will not refute him.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
vegetarians, and that creeps me out a little.
What's so creepy about being a vegetarian?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I, also, am fond of a lady who likes some sausage from time to time.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Its about the problems caused by overreliance on modeling, and in todays age, computer models, in ecconomic and social applications http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2009/03/computer-models-and-cognitive-failure.html#0[^]
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You have this hang-up on "models"
I've never seen it. He does have a hang-up on those who ignore the fact that they have not, as yet, created a model that can predict climate changes, weather changes, or temperature changes with any degree of accuracy. He talks about models because of the array of predictions that have been used to get large amounts of funding and justify the transfer of much wealth that have been proved - over and over again - to be wrong. In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies. You may find his harping on the subject to be tiresome - I do myself at times - but the use of strawman arguments will not refute him.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try. As I said, some problems are too complex to reduce to a few simple formulas or observations.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this: Scientist: "According to our current models, there's an X% probability that over time period A, B will change by C +/- D" Public Relations: "Our crack research team has deduced that in the next A years, B will increase by as much as (C+D)" Newspaper: "Scientists predict B will increase by more than (C+D) over the next few years" Politicians: "B is definitely going to change to (C+D)*10 unless we adopt drastic measures to stop it!" ... Scientist: "Uh, did we say that?" Scientist 2: "Hey, I figured out that Z factor... We can narrow our margin of error by--" Scientist: "Forget it... No one's listening anymore."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I, also, am fond of a lady who likes some sausage from time to time.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I, also, am fond of a lady who likes some sausage from time to time.
Many women enjoy a sausage - but have little skill at sausage-making.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I, also, am fond of a lady who likes some sausage from time to time.
Many women enjoy a sausage - but have little skill at sausage-making.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
Oh how I wish I could vote that 10.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try. As I said, some problems are too complex to reduce to a few simple formulas or observations.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this: Scientist: "According to our current models, there's an X% probability that over time period A, B will change by C +/- D" Public Relations: "Our crack research team has deduced that in the next A years, B will increase by as much as (C+D)" Newspaper: "Scientists predict B will increase by more than (C+D) over the next few years" Politicians: "B is definitely going to change to (C+D)*10 unless we adopt drastic measures to stop it!" ... Scientist: "Uh, did we say that?" Scientist 2: "Hey, I figured out that Z factor... We can narrow our margin of error by--" Scientist: "Forget it... No one's listening anymore."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I guess this http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1[^] still applies. You must be feeling generous posting to yet another one of his AWG posts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I guess this http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1[^] still applies. You must be feeling generous posting to yet another one of his AWG posts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I figured this one was a little more general than just his pet issue, and I made an effort to keep it that way.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try. As I said, some problems are too complex to reduce to a few simple formulas or observations.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this: Scientist: "According to our current models, there's an X% probability that over time period A, B will change by C +/- D" Public Relations: "Our crack research team has deduced that in the next A years, B will increase by as much as (C+D)" Newspaper: "Scientists predict B will increase by more than (C+D) over the next few years" Politicians: "B is definitely going to change to (C+D)*10 unless we adopt drastic measures to stop it!" ... Scientist: "Uh, did we say that?" Scientist 2: "Hey, I figured out that Z factor... We can narrow our margin of error by--" Scientist: "Forget it... No one's listening anymore."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this:
I know I won't convince you of anything but just for the record, back in 2000 we heard directly from one of those misunderstood, misquoted scientists: "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". . . "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. Those were his words, no-one else's. And yet this last year saw record cold and record amounts of snowfall. But when Fat_Boy points out that Viner was dead wrong, but has supported himself quite well on grants given because of scary predictions like that, the group says he is blind. When he points out that some of the undisputed science of global warming is actually disputed by many reputable scientists, the group accuses him of ranting. And when he points out that the temperature recording techniques used are at best flawed and at worst deliberately designed to produce a certain set of results, the group dismisses him as a conspiracy nut. When I say that science is all about asking questions and being skeptical, I'm told I'm being nostalgic, presumably for the bad old days when not everything was known about everything. For the record, this post was about group-think, not global warming. ;)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
You have this hang-up on "models"... A model is s simulation... That's it. You use observation and/or experiments to figure out the starting condition and the rules, then let your computer play the game to its logical conclusion. When there are dozens of complicated factors affecting a system, you can't always simplify it to one magical formula. And yes, if you plug in the wrong "rules", or miss an important one, or over/underestimate the effect of one of the factors, you'll get incorrect results. This is obvious and well-understood. Every model depends on its inputs being correct, just as any non-simulated experiment depends on its measurements being accurate. But what's more useful, when trying to figure out a complex system? A) "Our model predicted X, given inputs A, B, and C. This should be accurate, assuming our inputs were correct." B) "I dunno... This is too hard... I'm gonna go play video games instead!" You use the tools and information you have available. If, in the future, you get better tools or more information, you revise your model/experiment and produce a better result.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)As I stated, its the overreliance on them that is the problem.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try. As I said, some problems are too complex to reduce to a few simple formulas or observations.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, he doesn't like liars and he points out their lies
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this: Scientist: "According to our current models, there's an X% probability that over time period A, B will change by C +/- D" Public Relations: "Our crack research team has deduced that in the next A years, B will increase by as much as (C+D)" Newspaper: "Scientists predict B will increase by more than (C+D) over the next few years" Politicians: "B is definitely going to change to (C+D)*10 unless we adopt drastic measures to stop it!" ... Scientist: "Uh, did we say that?" Scientist 2: "Hey, I figured out that Z factor... We can narrow our margin of error by--" Scientist: "Forget it... No one's listening anymore."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try.
No, thats what you think I think and you are wrong. I think models are useful in certain applicaitons, and their obvious limitations in other needs to be weel understood. For example the classic problem moddeling the transition of boundary layer flow from laminar to turbulent is utterly impossible depite being a relatively 'simple' applicaiton. I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless. And I am sure you would be happy to know that models such as these were not used in science as constituring proof of a theory. :) As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute cock. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I guess this http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1[^] still applies. You must be feeling generous posting to yet another one of his AWG posts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Is nothing to do with AGW. Its about the validity of modeling. AGW is just an example used in the piece. :) As for your link "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science". This can be defined thus: Science has a theory, that theory is tested by empiricle evidence. The theory os then proved or disproved. The empiricle evidence is science. The theory is science. Thats the science of why we dont believe science. If you want to use AGW as an example, then look at my sig for a perfect example of this in action.:)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
From what I've observed, it seems to go something like this:
I know I won't convince you of anything but just for the record, back in 2000 we heard directly from one of those misunderstood, misquoted scientists: "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". . . "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. Those were his words, no-one else's. And yet this last year saw record cold and record amounts of snowfall. But when Fat_Boy points out that Viner was dead wrong, but has supported himself quite well on grants given because of scary predictions like that, the group says he is blind. When he points out that some of the undisputed science of global warming is actually disputed by many reputable scientists, the group accuses him of ranting. And when he points out that the temperature recording techniques used are at best flawed and at worst deliberately designed to produce a certain set of results, the group dismisses him as a conspiracy nut. When I say that science is all about asking questions and being skeptical, I'm told I'm being nostalgic, presumably for the bad old days when not everything was known about everything. For the record, this post was about group-think, not global warming. ;)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
When I suggested that science was about empiricle evidence proving a theory I was told thats bull, and in fact its about likely hood and statistics! :) I wonder if we ever went to the moon based on statistics or whether we wnt on Newtons laws that had been proved over and over again. I think what it is is there isnt much left to discover except stuff way out in the far reaches of space or the very inside of matter. Everything else is known thus its not possible to have an eureka moment today. All thats left is dribs and drabs, uncertainties, maybees, and quite possibly, too many scientists chasing too little valid research.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I guess you read about the overreliance on models and how dangerous this is? Thats the point. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I understand his viewpoint, he thinks that since the models aren't 100% perfect yet, the researchers shouldn't even try.
No, thats what you think I think and you are wrong. I think models are useful in certain applicaitons, and their obvious limitations in other needs to be weel understood. For example the classic problem moddeling the transition of boundary layer flow from laminar to turbulent is utterly impossible depite being a relatively 'simple' applicaiton. I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless. And I am sure you would be happy to know that models such as these were not used in science as constituring proof of a theory. :) As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute cock. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless.
So do you give up entirely, or do you keep refining it until it becomes useful?
fat_boy wrote:
As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute c***. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
What? You mean crazy people could spout idiotic theories and get worldwide attention? Surely you jest! Yes, in any group of people, even the scientific community, some people will say stupid things. That's the way the human race works.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
I also know a model developed to study long shore drift. It became so diffictult and so many assumptions were made thet it actually became useless.
So do you give up entirely, or do you keep refining it until it becomes useful?
fat_boy wrote:
As for blaming the press Ian that absoloute c***. As you know lots of scienctsts have been the source of crackpot theories and have come out with outlandish wild claims that never come about.
What? You mean crazy people could spout idiotic theories and get worldwide attention? Surely you jest! Yes, in any group of people, even the scientific community, some people will say stupid things. That's the way the human race works.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Of course you keep trying, but you have to recognise, and publicise, known limitations. Especially if used in any kind of scientific endeavour. As for crazy old people, here is what one recently dead, not so old scientist said: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Steven Schneider It would seem that a lot of scientists listedned to his advice. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Of course you keep trying, but you have to recognise, and publicise, known limitations. Especially if used in any kind of scientific endeavour. As for crazy old people, here is what one recently dead, not so old scientist said: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” - Steven Schneider It would seem that a lot of scientists listedned to his advice. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
So the good scientists will come out and give the percentages and the error margins... The attention-seekers will spout their end-of-the-world speeches, and the middle men will make sure the line between the two stays nice and blurry.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)