glen e. p. ropella wrote:
I say go ahead and extend the model despite your ignorance, but be
vigilant in the caveats that the uncertainty in the extended model is
unbounded and your model is totally invalid ("invalid" in simulation
jargon or "unsound" in logic/philosophy jargon).
I'm not denying that this kind of social modeling goes on or that it
isn't useful sometimes.
But it's risky to even *talk* about this class of models -- that's why
there are legal guards against prejudicial evidence and many religions
consider bearing false witness a sin. If the symbols of a model
aren't anywhere close to grounded, almost any proposition could be true
or false. It could be that some things are more or less likely, but
figuring that out soon becomes a huge computational/cognitive load.
Marcus
============================================================
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
