Model of Flaws

The exercises we did today on island biogeography and genetic drift really reflect what we established in the climate change discussions, that models are inherently flawed. This reminded me of economics, where I learned about the "ceteris paribus" principle of economic models; that is, that a model will predict the outcome of changing an independent variable, but only if we assume that all other factors are constant. In real life, of course, we have many factors playing into a situation and while we can predict one outcome with a model, other factors will skew the expected results since they likely change as well.

Yet models can help us zero in on the factors that matter. For instance, the biogeography model compares the biodiversity of different islands based on proximity to the mainland and island area. But the model leaves out climactic processes, which would affect what animals can actually survive on the island, and has a bias toward smaller plants and animals that can more easily travel the distance from the mainland to the island. But because the model is built this way, we know that if a result deviates from the model's result, we can look to the neglected factors for explanation.

As bad as it sounds, it's important to look for flaws in arguments, since they very likely have certain weaknesses and biases. Climate change in itself is a controversial topic, and I'm hesitant to accept every model that comes around. Of course, like economics, that doesn't mean you only focus on the uncertainties; you take what you know and move on.

I think that's what I like about our current president. Obama is smart, yeah, I know. But he's willing to admit that he may make mistakes, but that he will learn from those and keep moving forward.

The BP oil spill is a prime example of trying to deal with an environmental issue based on models. The company, along with government-hired scientists, are working on trying to fix the problem and relying on estimates of various things: the pressure of the oil gushing out, the strength of various materials for detaining the oil, etc. The models may say all will be well, but we've seen several times before that it hasn't--that doesn't mean we wait until we know as much as possible about the situation and wait to do something, making the oil spill worse. And good grief, there are certainly those who will focus only on the uncertainties-and for wanting a perfect, flawless answer, these very people clamoring for action do nothing in the end. Of course I don't agree that by these efforts BP will make all things well; the ecosystem is being impacted and will feel the effects of this mistake for decades.