Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
To be honest the root of the problem is also philosophical end epistemological.

I once found a very serious problem in the work of colleagues. Serious, honest people. Really (I am not being sarcastic in any way).

They took 10 minutes to ack the problem and added that it had no consequence on published results. Well, I know it had to had.

But think about it: they spend lots of time doing the best they can and know. Large months of a big team. The psychological cost of assuming the error would have been too big. And, in some sense it was undeserved as we are talking of serious people that did their best.

My larger point is: extremely complex systems are difficult to model (mathematically and computationally), prone to massive numbers of errors. Human beings are smarter than baboons but they are not omniscient. Tackling the complex is... too complex.

I don't believe we can (as a species) do predicative science (with exceptions for some physics/chemistry/engineering which are SIMPLE in comparison to real life problems).

Relating to the global warming problem. I don't know if is exists as a problem, if humans are causing it. I really dont even care (me thinks peak resources will hit first and very hard. And proper peak preparation is actually compatible with tackling GW). But one thing I say: these complex predicative models are bonkers.

And I am not adding what I know about the pragmatics of the problem (I know a few things that I cannot write)

by t-------------- on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 at 08:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Migeru 4


Top Diaries

Occasional Series