Steven Bissell said:
>>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.<<

Fricking hilarious, and very true IMO.

Steve



--- Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -
>
> > 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


=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/