[FRIAM] Fwd: ABM

[Robert Howard]

That's what modeling is! A framework for understanding! A tool for
communication! 

The less constrained a framework is, the less useful it is. 

Think about it. A hammer is useful because it has a rigid body that hits
nails on the head. No one would use it if the handle was made of flexible
rubber that went all over the place. 

If we have many different interpretations for words and symbols, is not our
language less accurate and useful? We'd spend more time explaining what our
interpretation du jour is and waste time assuming we both are on the same
page when we're really not. 

A framework is a catalyst for communication! When it inhibits knowledge
transfer, it's abandoned by better ones. Relativity is a more accurate,
useful framework than Newtonian because it adds more constraining rules,
like the space-time invariant and E=MC^2.

A good constrained framework prevents a modeler from putting a square peg in
a round hole. The less constrained ones allow more entropy.

 

Robert Howard

Phoenix, Arizona

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Glen E. P. Ropella
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:29 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> It would be nice if there was a clean line between the known and 

> unknown. Then it would be an argument about software engineering.

> The situation is more like a modeler thinks that that something acts 

> within some range of parameters or plausible mechanisms and the details 

> parameters and behaviors are arguable or need to be found. Nailing them 

> down into some rigid type system won't necessarily help do that. It 

> could even obscure insight.

 

Worse yet, the modeler might rapidly squeeze a round peg into a square

hole late one night just to get the damn code working, then 9 months

down the line find herself concluding that the pegs actually are square.

 

I.e. the more one relies on frameworks (like OOP), the more difficult it

is to make conclusions independent of the assumptions of those

frameworks.  That means that frameworks might lead to question begging

results.... circular arguments.

 

- --

glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com

I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf. -- Robert Bloch

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 

iD8DBQFGZIQoZeB+vOTnLkoRAkBlAJ9ciB1cAjU8g6zim+n2XruztjRsnQCgxR1V

/oGjC10ru2uOGXRrJFh7yn0=

=ao7r

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070604/a33db01c/attachment.html