4 ms·
The article was interesting; I'd never heard of Forrester before. What I found interesting though, is the fact that the article never seemed to get into the qu
by Lazare 8y ago
The article was interesting; I'd never heard of Forrester before.
What I found interesting though, is the fact that the article never seemed to get into the question of whether he was right. Is that because the author considered it too obvious to warrant discussion, or because he didn't think it was relevant?
The tone of the piece feels like it's intended as a takedown, but the only actual criticism I noticed was here:
> we have decades of real-world evidence that demonstrates the disastrous costs of the “counterintuitive” anti-welfare agenda
But this came immediately after a section tracing this line of thinking back to some of the 20th centuries most respected thinkers, and after stating that this was now the default mode of analysis for policy wonks.
It reads like the author thinks they're administering the final blow after building up a damning case, and yet...
- Jtsummers 8y agoI agree. I think the real conclusions ought to be (non-exhaustive): Keep the model's assumptions in mind when making decisions based on it. Always remember that it's a model, and consequently always wrong (as measured against reality). All models have to be fine-tuned over time, especially dynamic models (where the system being modeled is itself subject to change in structure, consequently invalidating the model). ===== If you emphasize that the model is just a model, and its assumptions (both for excluded factors and included ones), then you can make reasonable decisions guided by the model. If you fail to do that, you'll start to believe the reductionist model and make flawed decisions.
- Lazare 8y agoYes. Models are basically programs, and GIGO absolutely applies: Garbage In = Garbage Out. :)
- hoaw 8y agoWhich is essentially the whole argument of the article. For example as summarized in the last paragraph: "Expert knowledge, of course, has an important place in democratic deliberation, but it can also cut people out of the policy process, dampen the urgency of moral claims, and program a sense of powerlessness into our public discourse."