Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-04-10 10:16 AM: > Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force > complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.
Yes, we definitely _do_ when the validation data indicates that the more complex mechanisms actually exist, as with the nature article. The trouble with parsimony as you're applying it in the above sentence is that you've abstracted out a particular phenomenon and intend to build a model to mimic only that particular phenomenon. This linearization of the system (and model) ignores lots of data regarding other related phenomena. I.e. you're abstracting out a simple (non-complex) phenomena and mimicking it with a simple model. That's not science so much as it's engineering or math. Science has to consider all the available data, even data sets that are incommensurate with each other. This requires concrete models and is why most scientists are intent on designing experiments with the "actual stuff" and only want to use computational models sparingly or in special cases. Simple one's do not suffice in the concrete world of actual flocks of birds. Actual flocks _have_ all the complicating detail and the extent to which that complicating detail can be removed or controlled is very limited. That's why the Nature article is more powerful and meaningful than the JASSS article. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
