3 ms·
"I'm pleased to see that my theory stands up to computational modelling," Was anyone else disturbed by that statement? We all know that models are heavily dep
by jeffdavis 14y ago
"I'm pleased to see that my theory stands up to computational modelling,"
Was anyone else disturbed by that statement?
We all know that models are heavily dependent on parameters, and by tweaking them you can get whatever result you want. The only use a model has is when it shows a pattern of predicting observations in the real world. In other words, a model is essentially a theory about the way the world works.
So "stands up to computational modeling" strikes me as a very unscientific thing to say -- kind of like saying "my theory stands up to his theory". Theories should stand up against testing and observations in the real world.
- aggronn 14y agoWithout reading the context, I expect that 'computational modeling' refers to a largely mathematical model that is potentially agnostic about underlying causes. You can run simulations that accurately reflect the real world using one set of variables, then run another model (or somehow test another model) that confirms the original simulation's results from a different perspective; ie, you have two theories, and you validate the second by proving its equivalent to the first, even though it uses a different set of variables, or looks at it using a different theoretical framework. of course, you're right that this can be troublesome. just because you can validate a theory as accurately modeling reality doesn't mean that the components of the model are true or useful. and necessarily, the first 'computational model' would have needed to be already validated before something else might be validated against it...in case that wasn't clear.