Re: The differences between "wrong"; "incorrect"; and "limited"...

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Judith,

Great post! I think your 3 added criteria for model or pseudo-model
assessment are exellent and I agree yours are likely higher priority
that the three I tossed out.

Also wanted to say your prior post on thinking of all possible ways to
solve the asteroid-Earth collision problem was great. Two far-out
ideas I had after reading yours were 1) to get massive numbers of
people to think or pray the asteroid to change course (there are
scientific and statistically significant studies on the effects of
thought/prayer power at a distance or for healing, not sure how
many or how solid) and 2) to get massive numbers of people to move
to one spot on Earth to alter our own trajectory, if we carry enough
weight :-). The angle on both of these is that even if they failed or
were only experiments that falsify those hypothetical options they
would be more sustainable long-term if they worked (another
candidate for model assessment - how sustainable/practical
long-term?). The NASA plan depends on machines and rockets and
technology that is hugely dependendent on non-renewable energy
and materials processes, and so it won't likely be an option for our
great gandkids if they face the same asteroid problem.

As for this question, the pre-amble to which I totally agree with,
Judith:

Judith Rosen wrote:

> My concern over all of the above is that we (humanity) don't even 
> recognize relational causality as a player, in any scientific way. That 
> was my father's whole gig, frankly: that /_We need to_/. In order to 
> predict what kind of side effects eventually come from what kind of 
> entailment dis-relation in a model compared with the system it 
> models.... we really need to study the relational aspects of side 
> effects in a systematic way. As far as I know, no branch of science is 
> involved in doing that. Does anyone on the list know of one?

The best work I know of is in ecosystems science and theory by
Bob Ulanowicz and Bernie Patten and colleagues. For these folks
indirect effects (similar to your side-effects perhaps) play the
dominant role in ecosystems and by extension all life. That is,
indirect effects related to transfers of matter and energy (food)
between organisms, species and/or functional types are much
larger that direct effects (from a single direct predator-prey
relation, for example). I can get some cites on such work if you
are interested. The math behind this comes from matrix algebra
that they use to analyze/synthesize understanding of ecological
networks or food webs. You can calculate the indirect effects of
2nd, 3rd, 4th, ...nth order transfers and they are always greater
than direct, 1st order, nearest neighbor transfers. Such math and
science leads to results such as alligators being of net benefit in
terms of energy/matter inputs to the frogs they consume. (It
would not, however, necessarily support top-down control in
all cases or trickle-down economics...)

Dan