Although I tend to agree with you because I think validation and trust are synonyms, I think it's too easy to cherry pick conclusions from either article and say that their research is evidence for those conclusions.
The Nagy article merely gives evidence that particular birds may well lead flocks, in general. (But remember that not all flocks are the same. These are expert racing pigeons, after all. ;-) But it doesn't demonstrate that flocking _always_ requires particular leaders. It's sufficient but perhaps not necessary. And although the Quera article has validation problems, it might still be taken for rhetorical evidence supporting the idea that, in some (real world) flocks, perhaps leadership is emergent. I.e. it is _possible_ that (real world) flocking doesn't require particular leaders. As Sarbajit was saying, any single research effort gives us only a tiny, flawed, aspect of reality. So, while I also trust the data-based modeling done by Nagy et al more, I wouldn't denigrate Quera et al as pure fluff. I also wouldn't convict myself to only trusting data-based rhetoric and disbelieving model-based rhetoric. But, obviously, that's me. [grin] Robert Holmes wrote circa 10-04-07 06:17 PM: > A thoroughly neat synchronicity in the current research on flocking. > > Here's some > science: > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08891.html > (populist > version here > <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125665334>) > > And here's some fluff: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/2/8.html > > They come up with distinctly different conclusions. Guess which one I trust. -- 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
