Re: A whiff of reality...

[Doug Donalson]

Well, that is most interesting!  I never would have thought that a
model/paper would be rejected for not being "individual enough".  Usually it
is from the opposite end.

Steve, at least from looking at the quote, you got an idiot, don't take it
for any more than that.  (After saying that, I hope its not someone I
know...)  The opinion quoted is just personal predjuce, not science.  The
issues he quotes are all applicable to home built IBMs, and for that matter,
analysis of analytical models.  It is true that the modeller should make
sure that they use a package because it fits their system and not try to
force the system into a package.  But once again, this is not just am IBM
issue, Theoretical Ecologists have forced real systems into ODE formats for
years without taking into account the assumptions necessary to do so.  (In a
sense, this is really the theme of my dissertation.)

BTW:  You also had a paper into Ecology, any word?

Cheers,

   D3
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Lang & S. Railsback <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 4:59 PM
Subject: A whiff of reality...


> We just had the experience of having a conference symposium paper
> rejected as the result of vitriolic comments by someone very offended by
> our suggestions that (a) individual-based models (fish, in our case) are
> more mechanistic and general if important behaviors are emergent instead
> of forced; and (b) computer implementation issues are important and
> modelers should take advantage of software professionals and tools like
> Swarm and our Swarm-based fish modeling package. An exerpt:
>
> "I very strongly DO NOT believe that the development of software
> packages is the answer to the lack of use (of agent-based models) in
> management. In my opinion, modelling software packages ... have a great
> potential for abuse, especially in a management situation, where the
> person using software that they are not REALLY familiar with try to
> apply it to an inappropriate situation. It is too easy for assumptions
> to go unacknowledged, and results to be applied too generally and
> uncritically in these situations...It is also possible to too easily
> publish studies based on prepackaged models where the modeller lacks
> understanding of what the model is really doing.
>
> Many IBMs are rather simple conceptually, and ... basic programming
> techniques can be perfectly adequate. The modeller, by programming their
> own IBM, gains in understanding of all the assumptions and formulations
> included in the model."
>
> (This was especially interesting because another point we made was the
> importance of fully specifying a model on paper.)
>
> Initially I was just going to send this to Glen R. as a warning in
> preparing the talk on software issues in agent-based ecology that we
> asked him to give this summer. But maybe others have had similar
> experiences and suggestions for dealing with it? (We chose not to waste
> any more of our time on this particular symposium.)
>
> Steve
> --
> address@hidden
> Lang, Railsback & Assoc.
> 250 California Ave., Arcata CA 95521
> 707-822-0453; Fax 822-1868
>
>
>                   ==================================
>    Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling
techniques
>    esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
[un]subscribing),
>    please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
>    body of the message.
>                   ==================================
>



                  ==================================
   Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
   esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
   please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
   body of the message.
                  ==================================