[FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump

[uǝlƃ ☣]

On 1/22/20 12:23 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> [*/NST===>] Not Epstein himself, but another <https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=006433492719462442300:_7mu_xxuwwu&q=http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/10.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiTuKne9ZfnAhVXK80KHfufBS8QFjAJegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw17l4TL-F4470Z31g-ieHBv>, and yet another <http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/15/3/1.html>, who took issue with us both.

Thanks. I've read those two responses.

> */I think I want to take the position that if the structure of the a model does not mimic the structure of the phenomenon it models IN SOME IMPORTANT RESPECT, then its predictive value is irrelevant to its explanatory value./*

I tend to agree. But I don't fully agree. You've just kicked the can down the road with your "some important respect". Important when? To whom? For what purpose? Etc. What kind of respect? How much of that respect? Etc. It turns into one of those statements that's SOOOOO general as to be useless. This is why "models as artifacts absent their modeling context" is a critical concept. And studying models as 1st class objects, in themselves, regardless of their referent, is a critical thing to do.

> */I wonder if we could continue this discussion using the Schelling Model <http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Segregation> as an example.  Perhaps we could exemplify the use and impact of the following terms with respect to this familiar, simple, but nonetheless, compelling, model. /*

Why choose the Schelling Model? It's way more complex than my example of a wooden sphere modeling a baseball ... it gives you all sorts of wiggle room to get confused and to confuse others. You may *think* it's simple. But it's not.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ