5 ms·

And in addition, after making the 60%-80% adjustment, if you still think the results look wrong, you now know that the model itself may require tweaking or rede

by Bsharp 13y ago

And in addition, after making the 60%-80% adjustment, if you still think the results look wrong, you now know that the model itself may require tweaking or redesign. I really don't understand all the negativity here.

ataggart 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?
- clavalle 13y ago
  You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.
- Bsharp 13y ago
  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)
JackFr 13y ago
You really don't understand the negativity? The OP offered a ridiculously simplistic model in an obnoxious and aggressive style, oblivious to the gaps in his own knowledge claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy. So, despite the fact that there was some trifling value to the post, he's really going to garner a lot of negativity.
- Bsharp 13y ago
  Can you quote where he "claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy"?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    For the proper definition of "analytic framework", "shut the fuck up and write some fucking code" This is explicitly an assertion that there won't be anything important that can be added to the debate that cannot be expressed in code. On the flip side, he absolutely doesn't assert that the particular model is the end-all in terms of anything - he expresses desire to see improvements.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      I was contrasting using a mathematical model to simply repeating talking points and poorly thought out assertions (i.e., every discussion about BI that shows up on HN). Obviously gathering data would be an incredibly valuable contribution to the discussion. I should have been more clear on that point, I guess I just thought it went without saying.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I can't speak for others in this thread, but I for one certainly didn't interpret anything you'd said as devaluing evidence. Obviously, data can be expressed as code...
  - JackFr 13y ago

by Bsharp 13y ago

ataggart 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?
clavalle 13y ago
You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.
Bsharp 13y ago
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)

JackFr 13y ago

You really don't understand the negativity? The OP offered a ridiculously simplistic model in an obnoxious and aggressive style, oblivious to the gaps in his own knowledge claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy. So, despite the fact that there was some trifling value to the post, he's really going to garner a lot of negativity.

Bsharp 13y ago
Can you quote where he "claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy"?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  For the proper definition of "analytic framework", "shut the fuck up and write some fucking code" This is explicitly an assertion that there won't be anything important that can be added to the debate that cannot be expressed in code. On the flip side, he absolutely doesn't assert that the particular model is the end-all in terms of anything - he expresses desire to see improvements.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I was contrasting using a mathematical model to simply repeating talking points and poorly thought out assertions (i.e., every discussion about BI that shows up on HN). Obviously gathering data would be an incredibly valuable contribution to the discussion. I should have been more clear on that point, I guess I just thought it went without saying.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I can't speak for others in this thread, but I for one certainly didn't interpret anything you'd said as devaluing evidence. Obviously, data can be expressed as code...
- JackFr 13y ago