"Social Modelling and Simulations" : a dead end?
In my short talk, I'll briefly introduce my main points, to be discussed and developed later in the discussions. You can also find my arguments, examples, references... in a paper "The politics of physicists’ social models" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300453?via%3Dihub) and, in a more detailed way, in my recent book "Your Life in Numbers" (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-65103-9) in which I draw lessons from 20 years of experience of a physicist in "Social Modelling and Simulations".
In (too) short, my feeling is that "Social Modelling and Simulations" is a dead end and that we have many more interesting things to do as experts in formal methods to to tackle the social and ecological emergencies.
1/ Before discussing technical details, preliminary questions are "Who is going to use this model?" "Who would learn something useful from it?" I'm speaking about real answers, not those given at the beginning of papers to justify them. My experience is that while very simple models (such as Schelling's on micro-macro relationship) may be conceptually useful to correct our intuitive models of social mechanisms, their relevance for real social systems is moot. And trying to solve this by using complex models is a dead end for many reasons, that have to do with the difference between the social and physical realms (absence of conservation laws, lack of stability of the so-called "social atoms", impossibility to ‘tame’ the social world inside laboratories to make models relevant...)
2/ From a political point of view, social models look at social issues from an overhanging position, which is a smashing political project. Democratic societies need a different use of social numbers, essentially to transfer information and allow coordination and planning. But these social numbers should be controlled by those who are supposedly described by them.
3/ From a scientific point of view, most social modeling is scientifically "dead" to use John Dewey's words. His work on science and social issues is mandatory reading for social modelers without social science training. I cite him (1938) : "Any problem of scientific inquiry that does not grow out of actual (or "practical") social conditions is factitious; it is arbitrarily set by the inquirer instead of being objectively produced and controlled. All the techniques of observation employed in the advanced sciences may be conformed to, including the use of the best statistical methods to calculate probable errors, etc., and yet the material ascertained be scientifically "dead" i.e., irrelevant to a genuine issue, so that concern with it is hardly more than a form of intellectual busy work".
List of Endorsements
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Close debate
What is the summary or conclusion of this debate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
You can check the rest of the comments here.
I was waiting for this post since the debate started :)
I completely agree with your criticisms, however, I think those are not the gravestone on the sociophysics research project, just a starting point.
Don't you think that citizens science and situated research practices (like those we try to put in place at Heuristica) are at least a way to try to address the issues you raise in your post?
Loading comments ...