[FRIAM] Article on Epstein

[Robert Holmes]

Good question - an explanation that's grounded in actual field research I
guess.

IMHO, an ABM can never offer an explanation for a social behaviour. All it
can ever do (and I'm not being dismissive, I think this is important) is
offer a suggestion for an explanation that can subsequently be confirmed or
denied by real social research/anthropology/enthnological field research
program.

I don't think this is a particularly strong claim. The logic behind the a
sugarscape or Netlogo style ABM seems to be (i) apply some micro rules to
checkers running round a checker board, (ii) generate an unexpected macro
behaviour, (iii) offer the micro rules as an explanation of the macro rules
then (iv) claim that this checker-board behaviour is analagous to behaviour
of real people/animals/companies/other real world entities.

Step (i) through (iii) are OK (though most ABM papers I see aren't as
upfront about the many-to-one nature of the explanation as Carl is in his
email) but (iv) strikes me as a bit of a stretch; certainly I'd like more
than vague assurances from the researcher that yes it's valid, honest. It
doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask for some evidence that the leap in
(iv) is reasonable. But how often do we see that in the literature? As I
suggest above, there's plenty of social research techniques that could
generate that evidence. But I get the impression that the detailed
comparison of model with reality that you get in (say) the Ancestral Pueblo
study is the exception rather than the rule.

And this is why we need more Mike Agars in this world.

Robert

On 6/26/07, Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com> wrote:
>
> What kind of explanation of social behavior would satisfy you?
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
> Epstein has a new book and MIT Tech Review are running an article on
> artificial societies on the back of it
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18880/page1/
>
> And again, there's that old chestnut: these models explain, not predict.
> Do we still believe this? I agree - they do not predict, but do they even
> explain? I'm getting increasingly troubled about this whole notion that the
> rules the researcher puts in the agents actually have some sort of analog in
> actual people. Even when conclusions are presented as "this is AN
> explanation" not "this is THE explanation", I suspect that the ABM
> researcher is being somewhat optimistic.
>
> So what is the relationship between the rules in the artificial agents and
> the rules in real people?
>
> Robert
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
> "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience – well, that comes
> from poor judgment."       A.A. Milne
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20070626/2e1818fd/attachment.html