Read on Twitter
Thread/ 1 One of the risks of game theoretic models of policy dilemmas is translation back to real world. Firstly, model set-ups claim to be & #39;simplification& #39; of a target system but this assumes we know the system& #39;s basic form already. Catch-22... https://twitter.com/GernotWagner/status/1273347886932205574">https://twitter.com/GernotWag...
2/ This model of #climate negotiations with #geoengineering it is claimed & #39;simplifies to the basic form& #39; of climate diplomacy. But how climate diplomacy works is precisely what is in question in this new simulation by @GernotWagner and @adrien_fabre . #Fn1">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0492-6 #Fn1">https://www.nature.com/articles/...
3/ Second, assuming this leap of faith (abstraction=simplification of actual real world) exacerbates already substantial risk of slippage IMO, from & #39;this model world works like this& #39; to & #39;the target real world works like this& #39;. I think this is an example of such slippage
4/ without providing evidence - historical or contemporary - why is it & #39;likely& #39; these conditions apply? The paper does not say.
Models can be useful, but & #39;cherry-picking by modelling& #39; is also a danger: curate an artificial model system, assume the model represents & #39;basic form& #39;,
Models can be useful, but & #39;cherry-picking by modelling& #39; is also a danger: curate an artificial model system, assume the model represents & #39;basic form& #39;,
5/ emphasise a particular model-result, claim & #39;likely& #39; in real world.Not accusing of dishonesty - models are very seductive. But target worlds cannot be assumed to have & #39;basic form& #39; of the curated model, and model results initially demonstrate the model world, not the real one
6/ With geoengineering already often conceptualised, studied & evaluated as abstracted devices outside society & world politics, inserting that into abstracted hyper-stylised models of world politics is asking for trouble, IMO. See also Contraption Fallacy http://ceassessment.org/guest-post-olaf-corry-open-university-climate-engineering-and-the-contraption-fallacy/">https://ceassessment.org/guest-pos...
7/ The standard Game Theory modeller response is a tactical epistemic retreat: oh but it& #39;s just a model outcome, absolutely not a claim about reality. See responses here for an example: https://twitter.com/GernotWagner/status/1273347886932205574?s=20">https://twitter.com/GernotWag...
8/ Models are useful. The problem is what Paul Pfleiderer calls & #39;Chameleon models& #39; that shape-shift from & #39;hey look guys, I& #39;m policy relevant& #39; to & #39;oh but I& #39;m just a model& #39;, when challenged: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/chameleons-misuse-theoretical-models-finance-economics">https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-r...
8/ Models have a strange alure, especially where uncertainty of the future and complexity reign. But they are fraught with danger when (inevitable) translation to real world happens (either by authors, peers, policy-makers). Esp, in a field with highest stakes & vested interests
