3 ms·
Tangental: "the researchers added a simulation in which the depth and mass of fish were tied to the rate of mortality by fishing" Is this really a process whe
by dalbasal 8y ago
Tangental:
"the researchers added a simulation in which the depth and mass of fish were tied to the rate of mortality by fishing"
Is this really a process where simulation->result->theory. IE died the model or simulation played a key role indeveloping or validating a theory. Or, is this a process where they started from a theory (that works, explaining observed results) and then built a simulation that demonstrates the theory?
I feel like I'm seeing this kind of language in the pop science press, maybe starting from the climate/weather world.
Have models of ecosystems (eg) been getting more use as "theory generators," are researchers creating more models ex post as an supporting evidence, or is this just a shift in journalistic language?
...and... if the answer is "models are really playing more of a role"... please elaborate if you know anything interesting. What software is being used? Are biologists building these models/simulations themselves, or are there specialists available to them?
^ I'm not hating on language choices or ex post evidence gathering. Darwin used what we might call a "simulation" (or statistical analysis, depending on the journalist) to predict and then validate a theory about bird mortality in storms. That was great science, and foundational. Not hating. Just curious about changes in the role of simulation/modeling.
- marcus_holmes 8y agoyeah, every time I see "we proved this theory using a simulation..." I get a little voice in my head that says "then you didn't prove anything except your ability to create a simulation that agrees with your pet theory" I understand that conducting experiments with ecosystems to prove why they behave in particular ways might be a tad tricky. But that just means that theories about ecosystems are hard to prove, not that they get a free ride to "proven".
- dalbasal 8y agoA more charitable way if putting it might be, is the simulation part of the theory or part of the evidence for it. Both are acceptable, but not at once. Simulation as theory is "safer" in a poperian sense.
- marcus_holmes 8y agogood point. The way the article presented it, the simulation clearly appears to be part of the proof. But that could be a product of the journalistic filter applied.