Stephen Wolfram (Mathematica maths software and Alpha engineering search software) has just blogged about his acquisition of a Swedish modelling software company.
Very interesting stuff.
One of the comments caught my eye. Mark wrote:
"If only someone could have effectively modeled the consequences of building six nuclear reactors next to each other in an earthquake zone right beside the ocean and a hundred and fifty miles from the thirteenth largest city on the planet. Yeah. A good model would have made all the difference. [coughs] Really. Is the answer improving our technology or is the answer improving the idiots using our technology?"
I responded:@Mark. Any model (whether made by an idiot or not) depends on the axioms involved, the first principles the algorithms have to obey. Aristotle (and Hegel, too, bless him) distinguished between dialectical reasoning and formal logic. The reasoning discovers and refines the axioms underlying a system – and since they can’t be formally proven (Gödel) they are what Hegel calls apodeictic – you can just point at them and explain that the logic of investigation, discussion, and demonstration has got you here. Euclid
None of this is Kantian, however – he expels dialectical reasoning to the black box of the Thing in Itself, and tells us basically to go hang when it comes to discovering axiomatic principles. And so much of the work of today’s science and study is based on Kant (at least lip service is paid) and the worship of formal logic, that the axioms are arrived at by trial and error.
In the case of economics and politics, the investigation process is constrained by ideology and prejudice. Our system cannot deviate from equilibrium (eg linear development) over time on average. Great. And then the crises come and are dismissed as soon as they’re over as anomalies. Inadequate axiom, catastrophic result, regardless of whether the algorithms are created by a rocket scientist or an astrologer. Sun around the earth? Same thing. Nukes on earthquake faults – our models assure us bad things can’t happen, so they won’t and they haven’t.
Bottom line, the quality of our axioms depends on our freedom from ideology and prejudice in our search for fundamental principles.
Most politicians and economists today have clout without quality, they’re always getting it wrong. Quality without clout exists too. But clout is a political thing. The Inquisition had clout without quality, Galileo had quality without clout.
In other words, Quality is Us, and US is a political war with THEM.
None of this is Kantian, however – he expels dialectical reasoning to the black box of the Thing in Itself, and tells us basically to go hang when it comes to discovering axiomatic principles. And so much of the work of today’s science and study is based on Kant (at least lip service is paid) and the worship of formal logic, that the axioms are arrived at by trial and error.
In the case of economics and politics, the investigation process is constrained by ideology and prejudice. Our system cannot deviate from equilibrium (eg linear development) over time on average. Great. And then the crises come and are dismissed as soon as they’re over as anomalies. Inadequate axiom, catastrophic result, regardless of whether the algorithms are created by a rocket scientist or an astrologer. Sun around the earth? Same thing. Nukes on earthquake faults – our models assure us bad things can’t happen, so they won’t and they haven’t.
Bottom line, the quality of our axioms depends on our freedom from ideology and prejudice in our search for fundamental principles.
Most politicians and economists today have clout without quality, they’re always getting it wrong. Quality without clout exists too. But clout is a political thing. The Inquisition had clout without quality, Galileo had quality without clout.
In other words, Quality is Us, and US is a political war with THEM.
