|
|
|
|
|
|
by onecommentman
744 days ago
|
|
|
A truism in the computer modeling communities of the 1970s and 1980s was “the product of a modeling exercise is not the computer model, but the modeler”. The insight gained by rigorously modeling a system in computer code produces a person (the modeler) who can provide valuable insight when asked questions about the system. In policy analysis, the modeler’s insight can often provide quick and dirty and auditable (and often correct) analyses/answers about the modeled system without ever running the developed formal computer model. The exercise of the formal development of a computer model credentials the modeler as having gained a level of rigorous systems-level expertise. And the scope and detail of that modeler knowledge is certified in the depth and breadth of the computer model itself (and the currency and accuracy of the input data sets). Nice to have such an human analyst around when important policy decisions need to be made, since such policy decisions should be made and implemented by humans who can explain the confidence that exists regarding the knowledge that supports the given decision. The decision makers can then point to the analysts for the estimate of the degree of confidence that can be ascribed to the policy analysis that supports the decision. That’s how it’s supposed to work, and that philosophy is formalized in existing decision processes for complex technical systems such as transportation, telecommunications, power, military systems, etc.. You know, the important stuff…. |
|
|