Nick writes: "I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea?"
It seems to me the job of a politician is to navigate the values of their constituency and their party. Together they form or at least admit goals. The job of a scientist is to learn how systems work, and communicate it in precise language. Put them together and one has a sort of constraint or satisfiability problem. If one wants to optimize for the maximum economic return from fossil fuel use, then one can look at the best estimates of the IPCC for what the side-effects of that would likely be. Are they survivable, for the relevant people, and not too expensive within a relevant time window? Similarly, if one wants to have equal distribution of wealth, one set of social norms or another, social science can offer a set of constraints to put into a calculation. If the constraint problem can't be satisfied, then either the model is inadequate or the goals are not responsible. If completely different goals can be satisfied with different cost structures, then it is no bu siness of social scientists, wearing their scientist hat, which goal to pursue. To say one is a conservative or a leftist suggests which types of goals will be sought, but it is just a preference so long as either class of goal in a constraint system could be satisfied. Like anyone, a scientist can have those preferences and pursue them passionately, ruthlessly, or whatever. But the worst thing is for a person whose profession it is to get to the fact of the matter, not to know if they are lying. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
