-
> Bissell said: Well Ben, isn't that the trouble with models? We have to
assume good faith
> on the part of whomever developed the model or is using it. That may be OK
> in some cases, but it isn't good science.
Ben replies: "I suppose that's the problem with just about everything. We
have to
assume good faith on the part of anybody who does anything. We assume in
good faith that our interlocutors speak and deal with us honestly, and
when interacting, we assume in good faith that we will uphold a good faith
relationship with them. Doing so doesn't constitute BAD science, as your
above comment seems to suggest. In fact, science is practiced most of the
time in precisely this way. (How many scientific abstracts begin with
a background statement proclaiming that "we will be using an X model
with a, b, and c as limitations..."?) " (snip)
Bissell says: and then there is peer review. In science we *do not* accept
on good faith, we rely on the review of other scientists in a closely
related field to say whether or not the model has been properly applied,
etc. I'm not sure what your point is Ben. Do you really believe scientists
use "good faith" in determining which theory they will use or what set of
data is best?
Bissell said further: A few years ago "null hypothesis"
> models were all the rage in ecology. However, in most cases the actual
> data, when compared to the model, turned out to be no different from
> random chance. In other words, the model seemed to be saying that
> there were no "real" ecological relationships in nature, that all was
> just random associations. So, was the problem with nature, the model,
> or the modelers?
Ben replied: Though I'm not familiar with the specifics of your argument, I
would
guess, given no specifics, that you can probably answer that question
yourself. (I'd put my money on "the model", but maybe you beg to differ.)
Perhaps a more relevant question is: what relevance does your question
have to your argument? I mean, in all honesty, I don't quite get the
reference. It seems red herringish. Perhaps you can clarify.
Bissell replies: The problem was with the modelers, the model is just a
model. It is neither right nor wrong, and that was my point. The only
problem with models is in the use. Models can be tight or loose, good or
bad, it really doesn't matter. What matters is how you use them. And, my
main point is that models *should not* be used as "proof" or as data, or
theory. Models, no matter if you agree with them or not, are heuristics to
be used as a "rule of thumb" in order to understand data, theory, etc.
And, just because I gave an example of how models had been (improperly) used
is hardly a red herring. It is precisely an example of the problem with
models. Models are not and should not be a replacement for good data
collection and the development of good theory. Building models *should* be
like peeing your pants in a dark blue suit, it should give you a warm
feeling, but don't expect anyone to notice.
Steven
In the final analysis one should think only
of one single science: the science of man,
or, more exactly expressed, social science,
of which our own existence constitutes at
once the principle and the purpose and in
which the rational study of the external
world naturally comes to merge, for this
double reason that the science of nature is
a necessary constituent of and a basic
preamble to social science.
Auguste Comte
Discourses, 1884
|