[ataggart]

Because this is just mathematical cargo-cult scientism. If the basis for deciding "the model itself may require tweaking or redesign" is that "you still think the results look wrong", you're not doing science.

[tptacek]

It's not scientism. You're simply jumping to an invalid conclusion. Stucchio could not have been clearer that simple Python monte carlo models were tools for discussion, not magic oracles.

[JackFr]

Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?

[Bsharp]

Unrealistic results are an indicator that something might be wrong with the model design or model choice which deserves investigating. Why is that such a bad thing?

If you're modeling investment growth and your model is:

  future_value = investment_amt * (interest_rate ^ num_years)

or

  future_value = investment_amt * (1 + (interest_rate * num_years))

you might realize after running it a few times and seeing incorrect results that the model is flawed (first case) or inappropriate (second case) and fix it to:

  future_value = investment_amt * ((1 + interest_rate) ^ num_years)

[clavalle]

You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.