@eladar saidYou're pointing to an airplane and saying it's not a very good car.
Of course it makes sense.
Talk out of your arse.
Construct a model based on your false assumptions.
Use the results that would occur based on the false assumptions coming out of your arse to support your false theories.
It is all circular reasoning.
@wildgrass saidWell, obviously you are obviously a true believer.
You're pointing to an airplane and saying it's not a very good car.
@eladar saidAll I'm asking for is intellectual honesty. I'm not sure if you don't understand or if you do understand but are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the purpose of a scientific model. Researchers build models to provide useful tools for a specific purpose. They never claimed they could time travel.
Well, obviously you are obviously a true believer.
@wildgrass
Intellectual honesty. Ok one step at a time.
A model is only as accurate as the numbers put into it.
True or false?
1 edit
@eladar saidYou're skipping a step.
@wildgrass
Intellectual honesty. Ok one step at a time.
A model is only as accurate as the numbers put into it.
True or false?
What is a scientific model and why are they useful in this scenario? What is the purpose of constructing one?
@wildgrass saidSo why do you not explain the steps?
You're skipping a step.
What is a scientific model and why are they useful in this scenario? What is the purpose of constructing one?
@wildgrass saidSure, explain everything you believe is important.
Wouldn't you want to know what a model is and why you're using it before you ask about the accuracy of input data? Why do we have models in the first place?
1 edit
@eladar saidI did explain, in earlier posts, that models are not intended to be crystal balls (although they are often misconstrued as such). Rather, models are experimental. Based on your reply, this point was either missed or ignored.
Sure, explain everything you believe is important.
... the primary and most effective use of epidemiological models is to estimate the relative effect of various interventions in reducing disease burden rather than to produce precise quantitative predictions about extent or duration of disease burdens.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764824
@wildgrass saidSo you are saying models should not be used to make political decisions like this lockdown or global warming legislation.
I did explain, in earlier posts, that models are not intended to be crystal balls (although they are often misconstrued as such). Rather, models are experimental. Based on your reply, this point was either missed or ignored.... the primary and most effective use of epidemiological models is to estimate the relative effect of various interventions in reducing disease ...[text shortened]... ent or duration of disease burdens.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764824
1 edit
@eladar saidNot at all. Even though the precise quantitative predictions from epidemiological models are not all that accurate, this is not surprising given the enormous number of variables involved. With models, you have the amazing ability to tweak a single variable and see how that might change relative to controls. It's an experiment. THat's why Fauci recommended social distancing. Back in reality, social distancing successfully flattened the curve predicted by the models, even though the overall hyperbolic numbers reported on CNN were inaccurate. Models improve over time with more data and are better now and will be useful moving forward in gauging where new outbreaks may arise. Hopefully you can appreciate the distinction between the use of models to estimate the potential effects of different input variables and the use of models to predict the future.
So you are saying models should not be used to make political decisions like this lockdown or global warming legislation.
Climate change is similar. Enormous problem with thousands of variables that's impossible to precisely predict long term. But we can still use models to compare various political strategies and what their impact might have.
To use a different human health analogy, it is pretty clear that eating a fast food cheeseburger every day will be bad for your weight. A dietician might create a diet model for you that predicted your relative weight if you a) kept eating a double cheeseburger for lunch every day or b) reduced your cheeseburger habit from 7 per week down to 3. You'd lose, say, 12 pounds in 3 months.
So you cut down on the cheeseburgers. Lots of other stuff is going on and you're stressed at work and you don't have time to exercise. You continue your regimen of cutting down on the burgers, but you only lose 3 pounds. The diet model was WRONG?
I would argue no. Even though the ultimate prediction was off by 4-fold, the effect of cheeseburgers on your weight was still correct.
2 edits
@wildgrass saidIf the models do not reflect what will happen, not a crystal ball then they are useless to base policy.
Not at all. Even though the precise quantitative predictions from epidemiological models are not all that accurate, this is not surprising given the enormous number of variables involved. With models, you have the amazing ability to tweak a single variable and see how that might change relative to controls. It's an experiment. THat's why Fauci recommended social distancing. ...[text shortened]... ultimate prediction was off by 4-fold, the effect of cheeseburgers on your weight was still correct.
Unless of course you want to base policy on something other than reality.
Thank you for a glimpse in your odd view of how things should work.
@eladar saidObviously nothing is a crystal ball (since crystal balls are fictional). So.... why are models useless? We can't use models to estimate traffic patterns for highway design?
If the models do not reflect what will happen, not a crystal ball then they are useless to base policy.
Unless of course you want to base policy on something other than reality.
Thank you for a glimpse in your odd view of how things should work.
What do you think a model is/does?
@eladar saidWhereas Donald Trump guessing is obviously a better idea.
If the models do not reflect what will happen, not a crystal ball then they are useless to base policy.
Unless of course you want to base policy on something other than reality.
Thank you for a glimpse in your odd view of how things should work.