3 ms·
> People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing. Indeed, I'm sad too when reading some of the comments here > "Post theory scienc
by csdvrx 5y ago
> People are so reactionary here when they read the title it's disappointing.
Indeed, I'm sad too when reading some of the comments here
> "Post theory science" really probably means "explanations for complex behaviours are complex and in some cases beyond simply testable theories"
Case in point: agent based modeling
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/agent-based-modeling https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-he...
> "Agent-based models are computer simulations used to study the interactions between people, things, places, and time. They are stochastic models built from the bottom up meaning individual agents (often people in epidemiology) are assigned certain attributes. The agents are programmed to behave and interact with other agents and the environment in certain ways. These interactions produce emergent effects that may differ from effects of individual agents. Agent-based modeling differs from traditional, regression-based methods in that, like systems dynamics modeling, it allows for the exploration of complex systems that display non-independence of individuals and feedback loops in causal mechanisms."
https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/ https://www.nasa.gov/consortium/AgentBasedModeling/
> "ABM enables an examination that would take years, decades, or centuries, to be performed in a matter of minutes. An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation."
- gls2ro 5y ago> An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation Here I think is the core of the whole problem: In case of people (as quoted "often people in epidemiology") how can we verify if ABM is correctly modeling people if we still don't know a lot about ourselves? For example we don't yet have a theory of consciousness, or we still are not able to accurately explain the process of how a child learns (yes we have multiple theories that we switch when one is not working) and so many other things. The same can be said when we model other things from planets to animals and particles: How can we know that the model is accurate? I am not saying the new way of doing science using "AI" is not science, but I am saying we need to move pass bold headlines and make sure that we results we take out of this have value and hold out.
- _0ffh 5y agoYeah, I think it is important to stress the point that the true strength of models like ABMs is that by systematically testing their behaviour for different circumstances and parameterisations can lead the experimenter to new qualitative insights! To just run some simulation and trust it's output in any even remotely quantitative sense is no more scientific than reading the future from tea leaves!