----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- Hi everyone, and replying to Renate in particular…
Models are fascinating things. They are tricky because they are basically pictures or simulations, that can be actual data driven, hypothetical or purely ideational or anywhere in-between. What they share is often a veneer of distanced authority, even objectivity. The varied definition of models recalls a bit of what Elaine Daston and Peter Galison, describe in their book, Objectivity, where they showcase the emergence of the virtue of objectivity in the 1800s in scientific images from a more illustrative virtue of "truth to nature". When modeling a bio-social phenomena like this one, the parameters, how people will behave in a pandemic, have to be based in previous epidemics and must be difficult to estimate. I found in my research into DNA imaging, that mathematical models describing the profound efficacy of DNA Fingerprinting (sometimes described as able to distinguish one individual from any other who has ever lived!) generally relied upon ideal instances in which there was no DNA contamination nor degredation, clear imaging results, no human error, complete transparency of commercial labs funded by prosecutors, etc. Furthermore, the statistics of for instance likelihood of two people having the same profile were often based upon ideal distribution of DNA mutations as if they had no basis in evolution nor correlation with other mutations. And when DNA fingerprinting was used by prosecutors in court, they generally stated to juries that no-two people had the same DNA sequence (3-billion bases), as a distraction, whereas the DNA fingerprints at the time used only about 12 actual DNA satellite sites... (anyway, if you're interested in more of the specifics of this there is a link on my website to an interview I did with Alessandro Ludovico for Neural IT, as well as on the America Project link that Renate sent)... But I'm not against models by any means, and the stakes and stakeholders here are completely different than in the DNA wars. There was a great article in the Atlantic a couple weeks ago by Zeynep Tufekci, called "Don't Believe the COVID-19 Models, That’s not what they’re for." It begins by describing the models used those of Cholera outbreak in mid nineteenth century England, which used data to correlate Cholera spread relative to the position of certain wells in the city. These models contradicted the aristocratic belief that Cholera was spread through the air (by poor people), and changed the policy toward its outbreak. What is fascinating about models is that they can have a predictive aspects, but they also have a communicative potential, and when the model communicates most effectively, it often negatively impacts its own predictions... Tufekci writes: "Here’s the tricky part: When an epidemiological model is believed and acted on, it can look like it was false. These models are not snapshots of the future. They always describe a range of possibilities—and those possibilities are highly sensitive to our actions." Of course the efficacy of a model's communicative potential doesn't happen in a vacuum. In the US, the leading model was generally repressed. I think this will become incredibly political this summer in the forthcoming science wars as our modeling will be described in both how accurate it is as well as how effective at illustrating possible trajectories… Anyway, hope everyone is having a good weekend. pv > On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Renate Ferro <rfe...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- > Hello to all of you. I am feeling overwhelmed this week as Cornell actually > began classes this week online. My job as Director of Undergraduate Studies > also has me busy virtually reaching out to potential art students who were > just accepted into our BFA program. It is great though to have this forum to > hear about your thoughts on the pandemic as it relates to life and work. Yes > Paul, today was the day we were supposed to be hosting you on campus and then > celebrating afterwards. How sad but thrilled you can join us on -empyre.- > > I am so happy you mentioned your work revolving around genome-hype. I am > thinking right now about the myth of simulations and models of all kinds > revolving around the reporting of this pandemic. It appears that COVID > models/ simulations are being run for all kinds of things. What's at stake > is truth and understanding of a pandemic. The question is how can we more > responsibly use models in simulating situations with clarity and with the > understanding that manipulations and bias are the norm. From estimating who > will get Covid to estimating who already has Covid to when the peaks will hit > NYC or Philadephia or Detroit, to how many masks, shields, or ventilators we > might need-- its all modeling and simulation. The percentages on morbidity > rate has also changed, shifted, and is in flux. > > What I have learned from your incredible work is how all these things can be > manipulated and shifted. I am thinking of your DNA shaped Copyright symbol > and your America Project > https://www.paulvanouse.com/ap/ > > So happy to have you join us and looking forward to Week 2. > Best. Renate > > Renate Ferro > Visiting Associate Professor > Director of Undergraduate Studies > Department of Art > Tjaden Hall 306 > rfe...@cornell.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
