Did I already post this here?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:03 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, to be clear, it wasn't (I don't think) Russ' rhetoric but Weintrobe > via McKibbon. Russ was simply pointing it out to us. > > But further, Weintrobe's argument seems to be (I haven't read the book, > only a couple of reviews of it) a mechanistic explanation for how we in the > northern hemisphere have become inured to externalities. She's proposing > neoliberalism (and/or it's ancillary appendages) is causal. It's fine to > disagree with that. But it's an entirely different thing to propose a > fact-accumulating, fitted *hull* of a model like Epstein's as equivalent > ... or even similar in kind. > > Whether it's beyond any human's ability to *make* the assertion she made > is obvious. It is within any human's ability to make such assertions. The > question is, if we take her hypothesis seriously, how do we *test* it? What > measures can we take that stand a chance of falsifying this causal role of > neoliberalism? > > And, I think, asking that question ... Can we test it? ... helps > distinguish between purely descriptive and mechanistic models. If it's your > claim that Weintrobe is making an untestable hypothesis, that's fine. But > in order to lift up Epstein's just-so story to the same level as > Weintrobe's, we'd have to also ask how can we test Epstein's (implicit) > hypothesis? > > So, again, my answer is: No, Epstein's case is unhinged in some crucial > variables, fragile to the inclusion of ignored facts. And regardless of > whether Weintrobe's turns out false or too weak, because it's mechanistic, > isn't fragile in that same way. > > On 5/21/21 1:44 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > > I agree with you. It's very challenging to make sense of the world, and > the human mind is amazing at building generative models of the world and > those models become the reality for the mind. With the models we can make > conclusions and explain how the world actually works. Now the clincher, to > make progress, the conclusions must have clear explanations that are > independant of the different layers that we used to generate the model to > get to the conclusion. > > > > I repeat, sure, use a complex layered approach to get to an > understanding. But after you have formed your conclusions, don't rely on > the complex layered model to explain the phenomena, distil it and get to a > clear conclusion and back it up with good explanations. Always try to > verify it using evidence. > > > > For example, in the narrative of Russ, it is assumed that they have > knowledge of the effects of Reagan and Thatcher on the world. I argue that > it is impossible to have any level of confidence in that. The world is a > chaotic complex system and we have some knowledge about what different > actors (eg Reagan and Thatcher) did and what consequently happened, but > nobody has a clue what the causal relationships were. It is simply > impossible to know that. Sure, one can speculate, but tag it as > speculation. ABM generative models show some promise in helping humans to > understand such complex systems, but it's early days and current ABM models > are not even close to answer questions like that. > > > > I don't know the answers and I speculate it's beyond any human's > capability to make statements like */“The self-assured neoliberal > imagination has increasingly revealed itself to be not equipped to deal > with problems it causes,”/* and have any level of confidence in this. Yes, > it's a good process to speculate that, but be real and admit that it's only > speculation and/or the result of a generative model in your mind and not > rooted in the real world. I tag it as "opinion" and respect the person to > have that opinion. > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
