Oreskes (2003:20),

A complex model may be more realistic yet at the same time more uncertain. This leads to the ironic situation that as we add more factors to a model, the certainty of its predictions may decrease even as our intuitive faith in the model increases. Because of the complexities inherent in natural systems, it may never be possible to say that a given model configuration is factually correct and, therefore, that its predictions will come true. In short, the “truer” the model, the more difficult it is to show that it is “true.”

Oreskes is speaking about scientific models, specifically those about ecological systems. Her insights have significance for technical models used by policy-makers (e.g., NEPA or CEQA compliance, air quality conformity, or travel demand models). As opposed to purely scientific models (models built by scientists to synthesize data, make predictions, or guide future work), these ones have explicit policy ends. Expensive decisions are made on the basis of them. Surely the limits of these models are better understood?

What happens when we trade in an old modeling paradigm (four step model) for a new one (activity-based models). Is the substantial cost involved in new model development worth the investment? How do we know? Do we think that just because the new model has more behavioral realism that it's somehow better? As Oreskes suggests, adding complexity has diminishing returns (just like in larger social systems [Tainter, 1990])...

Are there simpler models/heuristics that we could employ at far lower costs? The implications of considering these questions for modeling practice are substantial.


Oreskes, N. (2003). The Role of Quantitative Models in Science. Models in Ecosystem Science. C. D. Canham, J. L. Cole and W. K. Lauenroth (Eds.). Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.


Tainter, J. A. (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

reading

It's tough to teach yourself a new discipline, almost from scratch. Intro texts are obviously a good place to start. I'm looking for broad overviews of science studies that I can read to see where I want to latch on.

The book by Hess (1997) was reasonably well done. I got the sense that he wasn't sufficiently probing some of the more controversial issues but was just sort of dismissing positions out of hand if they didn't agree with his centrist positions on knowledge and truth.

The author is in the STS department at RPI. The interesting thing is that they seem to have an interest in applying the insights from science studies to actual issues. So, there was a very clear thread of activism woven throughout the book. Hess is very obviously profeminist and antiracist, and this came out in the work in a very good way. There was even a mention of environmental justice issues. This is kind of a refreshing change from Latour's "follow the actors" approach (which I still enjoy, and think could be usefully applied to activism-research), since rather than being inside the network (in a laboratory study, e.g.) you look over the shoulders of the actors to see the bigger picture.

I liked that the politicization of the analysis was viewed as an end to be achieved, rather than disparaged as somehow unworthy of study. Even though my department is receptive, it's nice to have your high level goals reaffirmed every now and then.

Hess, D.J. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York University Press: New York, NY.

"I suspect that it is intrinsic to the subject under discussion that it should despoil academic boundaries. For these boundaries contrive to keep some things well hidden."

From: Knowledge and Social Imagery by David Bloor (1976).

it's me?

allstar AB32 comments

flipping through some of the individual comments on the draft scoping plan (view them all here). came across some zingers, thought i'd share (sorry about the wacky fonts).

1. KENNY STOUT advocates for the freedom to drive 70. People died for this, c'mon!
First Name: Kenny
Last Name: Stout

Subject: Come on Americans let's use our common sense and brain

Just quickly wanted to address the wacko people that think that the United States of America is evil, sorry to inform you guys, we have saved more people around the world and are the most giving people in the world. Oh, by the way as far as driving 55, the men and women that have died protecting "all" of our freedoms and "all" of our rights have done so so that anyone that wants to drive 55 or for that matter 45 can. But, they have also fought and died for the Americans that want to drive 70 to do so also. For anyone that wants socialism or doesn't think you deserve to have freedom, please, you have the freedom to move to Russia or Iran or where ever you choose. Use your freedom to be happy because after all the men and women that have died for all of us would expect nothing less.

2. GREGORY BENZ does _not_ have a good idea.
First Name: Gregory
Last Name: Benz
Subject: Is this a good idea?

More and more top-tier world experts on climate, such as the founder of The Weather Channel and the head of the meteorolgy department at MIT, have said that climate change as presently occurring is not primrily anthropogenic in nature, nor is warming necessarily a bad thing. Before legislating major economy-wrecking initiatives, don't you think considerably more study is needed?

3. JANET JAMERSON LOVES TO SHOUT! (and perceives population as simply a problem of immigaration, oh my!)
First Name: Janet
Last Name: Jamerson
Subject: Less overpopulation for stopping global warming

SECURE OUR BORDERS. SINCE RONALD REAGAN LET THOSE ILLEGALS COMING HERE AND OVERPOPULATE TEN FOLD IN JUST 10-15 YEARS, CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING BESIDES TAKING OUR JOBS AND HOMES CAUSING THE FINANCIAL DISASTER WE ARE IN. WE NEED TO SECURE OUR BORDERS AND DEPORT ILLEGALS. IM NEED TO DO THERE JOB AND ARREST EMPLOYERS INCLUDING CORPORATIONS FOR HIRING THEM FINING THEM $10,000 ALSO.

another shortcoming of typical transport modeling i just realized while reading a paper by anable (2005). the four step model uses basic demographics (income, household size, vehicle ownership etc) during trip generation and mode choice. the assumption is that individuals equivalent on these metrics will have identical trip rates and mode choices. this is completely absurd. why do the models not account for differences in personalities (as assessed by attitudes). what would be the difficulty with sticking an additional 25-50 question battery on a travel survey to complexify the model. further, what are the cost tradeoffs with this approach vs. moving to more advanced models. to what extent can the 4sm be "saved" by marginal increases in complexity?

boo-yah!

"If the gap is to be bridged, that will have to be done by people with sufficient specialized training to read the technical papers of the scientists they study. There are other significant sorts of work to do in the social study of science--work that does not demand significant background in science--but they should not occupy the entire field simply by virtue of its currently standard patterns of recruitment."

Thomas Kuhn, writing in 1983 after being awarded the JD Bernal Prize for contributions to the social studies of science.

He's saying that tech-minded folks (scientists, but surely he meant engineers as well) need to get involved in science studies...in 1983...where are they? Definitely not in any of the major sts departments.

laboratory life

having had a hard time reading latour, but knowing that there's something there that i want to wrap my head around (or maybe it's just the fact that i like to be challenged with ideas, and don't like to give up without some kind of sustained struggle), i'm now trying a fourth (or is it fifth) attempt at another book. the plan is that something will stick, then i'll be able to go back to all the books that i put down and come away with brilliant insights.

laboratory life is latour's first book, so i'm assuming it'll be somewhat less obtuse than the others i've tried. seems like i'm right so far. he's actually got a very clear motivation that he lays out right at the beginning of the book.

Whereas we now have fairly detailed knowledge of exotic tribes, we remain relatively ignorant of the details of equivalent activity among tribes of scientists, whose work is commonly heralded as having startling or, at least, extremely significant effects on our civilisation.

woot! hopeful clarity will lead to insight.