There's a new paper out which models human behavioral ecology, Dynamics of Alliance Formation and the Egalitarian Revolution. Anthropology.net has a good review, so I'll just point you there. I was going to read this paper, and a few others on models of human group dynamics...but lately, I've been wondering, aren't there enough models now??? It seems like there is a large sample space of models which can generate a set of testable predictions. Perhaps it is time to catch up on data and experiment and hold off on more model generation? I'll probably keep reading these papers...but of late I've started to get the feeling that without more data the task of understanding human behavioral history is Sisyphean.
More like this
I like computers, really I do. Computational physics is a good thing. However, there is a small problem. The problem is that there seems to be a large number of people out there that treat numerical methods and simulations as something different than theoretical calculations.
(two entries from my old blog)
Here I am, at my parents house. There is no power at my house and Louisiana in September with no power is really a whole bunch of no-fun. But maybe I can use this time to talk about science.
**The Nature of Science**
My model has two parameters (pre 1920 rate, post 1920 rate).
Your model has four parameters (starting rate, first decrease, second
decrease, year that rate of decrease changed). The more parameters
that your model has, the easier it is to fit the data.
Frank Crary said:
Is it time for a meta-model, a model-of-models?
My feeling is the opposite -- there's too much data and no modelers trying to see what it says. That's not incompatible with what you're saying -- basically, the two types work independently of each other.
yeah, you both are on to something. mostly i'm just tired of a priori models.
I guess "models" is just another Thing That Scientists Like... ;)
I guess "models" is just another Thing That Scientists Like
Some of us... and some hate them. Just collect a bunch of data and publish it -- no hypotheses tested, no models to organize the mess.
Some like to test narrow hypotheses and focus more on experimental models, others are more interested in directing their investigations (and experiments) into how the topic fits together. That interest can change depending on the state of the field. Many social science topics aren't at a point where the overarching models come into contact with basic experimental findings. I think it's for good reasons among the bad.