4 ms·

That does exist, and decision makers do use it, SDGE models for example. But it's of limited utility. Language, rather than math, is often a superior modelling

That does exist, and decision makers do use it, SDGE models for example. But it's of limited utility. Language, rather than math, is often a superior modelling tool for domains where our understanding is inherently fuzzy due to uncertainty caused by a structural lack of data. Sociology would be an example where math is just the wrong tool for the job. If you tried to do that you'd probably be verging on crackpottery like those econophysics people.

photonthug 2y ago
> Sociology would be an example where math is just the wrong tool for the job. really? Stronger statement than just saying the tools aren’t there yet. I also don’t really get the alternative.. surely the phrase “modeling” has connotations of formality and predictive power for any domain, this is desirable, and a “model” should be more of a useful artifact than other subjective interpretations of history (like say an op-ed). Anyway they do mention complex adaptive systems. But whether that means building a model with it, or just nodding vaguely towards it as generally supporting their thesis, I’m not sure
- xpe 2y ago
  > Anyway they do mention complex adaptive systems. But whether that means building a model with it, or just nodding vaguely towards it as generally supporting their thesis, I’m not sure Done well, models in the complex adaptive systems world can help understand system dynamics at levels better than usual language. Making those models specific enough to make testable predictions is very important but often lacking.
xpe 2y ago
> Language, rather than math, is often a superior modelling tool for domains where our understanding is inherently fuzzy due to uncertainty caused by a structural lack of data. I'll reinterpret your comment charitably: given the current state of how well mathematics is understood, it may well be more effective to use language to reach people. Once someone "checks out" the effort at persuasion has failed. Our culture's lack of mathematical and logical fluency is a weakness. But not all language follows the patterns of rationality, which are formalized with logic and quantified with mathematics. Both have mechanisms for dealing with uncertainty that are far superior to language. I'm not discounting the power of language as a highly-compressed form of information exchange. But when we want to communicate rationality in a compressed way with language, we very often fool ourselves.

photonthug 2y ago

> Sociology would be an example where math is just the wrong tool for the job. really? Stronger statement than just saying the tools aren’t there yet. I also don’t really get the alternative.. surely the phrase “modeling” has connotations of formality and predictive power for any domain, this is desirable, and a “model” should be more of a useful artifact than other subjective interpretations of history (like say an op-ed). Anyway they do mention complex adaptive systems. But whether that means building a model with it, or just nodding vaguely towards it as generally supporting their thesis, I’m not sure

xpe 2y ago
> Anyway they do mention complex adaptive systems. But whether that means building a model with it, or just nodding vaguely towards it as generally supporting their thesis, I’m not sure Done well, models in the complex adaptive systems world can help understand system dynamics at levels better than usual language. Making those models specific enough to make testable predictions is very important but often lacking.

xpe 2y ago

> Language, rather than math, is often a superior modelling tool for domains where our understanding is inherently fuzzy due to uncertainty caused by a structural lack of data. I'll reinterpret your comment charitably: given the current state of how well mathematics is understood, it may well be more effective to use language to reach people. Once someone "checks out" the effort at persuasion has failed. Our culture's lack of mathematical and logical fluency is a weakness. But not all language follows the patterns of rationality, which are formalized with logic and quantified with mathematics. Both have mechanisms for dealing with uncertainty that are far superior to language. I'm not discounting the power of language as a highly-compressed form of information exchange. But when we want to communicate rationality in a compressed way with language, we very often fool ourselves.