Computer Modeling

I read a lot about science and technology. I have several websites bookmarked that I visit almost everyday, I have stacks of books I have read and that are patiently waiting to be read and I watch the Discovery Channel and the History Channel incessantly, not to mention all the sci-fi shows available (yes, that includes the Saturday Sci-Fi Channel Movie Premier of the Week, everyone of which are absolutely terrible.)
Over the past few years a new research tool has gone from fledgling enterprise to mainstream bandwagon, the new ‘must have’ item for the sophisticated researcher. I’m talking, of course, about Computer Modeling. As computers became smaller, faster and more sophisticated, a few mad-scientists discovered they could write their own code and build programs that would mimic real-world applications of whatever they were studying. Things like earthquakes, climate, high-energy particle behavior, mass-transit, volcanoes, ocean currents, population, supernovas, galactic collisions, tumor growth, what dinosaurs looked like, well . . . . you get the idea. Suddenly computer modeling is everywhere.
I don’t remember when I first began to be skeptical of the idea, but I do know it was when people began making dire predictions concerning the global climate based on models of earths atmospheric systems. “Wait a minute,” I said to myself. “The climates of the planet are some of the most complex, dynamic systems of which humans are aware. They involve millions of permutations (think the Butterfly Effect), conditions, combinations and the like, all of which are constantly changing.” Are these guys really that good? What is computer modeling exactly? Here’s my best guess (because, you know, no way am I going to go out and research all this).
A person or group of persons wants to study something that, for whatever reason, they are not able to study. (Say, what do you suppose goes on in the deep mantle of the earth?) So they write a program describing what they know about the topic and what they think they know, based on the bias of whoever is in charge (what can we allow, what is too controversial to allow) and whatever past research has shown them. The program is designed to allow all kinds of data to be plugged into the design—“let’s add a few more metric tons of magma, just to see what happens”—and let the program run. Based on all the information they put in, and the starting parameters, they will get a picture of what the mantle might be doing—in their computer. Because see, the program isn’t the mantle. It can’t be; we know almost nothing about the deep interior of the earth. We think we do, but no one’s ever been there to take samples, to watch what really happens, to take measurements etc.
Then it occurred to me . . . . these models are very familiar. Has anyone ever played Sim City? Or any number of other games for computers?
I am going to take a stand, here and now. I’m drawing a line on the carpet (Nita’s going to kill me) and daring science to step over. Here it is: Computer modeling is not real science. It is gaming. What these guys do has much more in common with game designers than research. This isn’t research, it’s playing guessing games based on personal bias, incomplete data, speculation and hubris. I realize scientists are serious people, sincere, hard working, often brilliant. But they are subject to the same foibles and myopic vision as the rest of us. Sure, some models are helpful. But if you look at the record (which I did not) I think you’ll find that the best use of modeling is in the field of engineering, not science. And games, obviously.
We are decades away from being able to do any real science by mimicking nature with computers. Maybe longer. They should keep trying, get better at it, learn more, gather ever more data. But they should not expect us (me) to take them seriously until they can prove that their programs are sophisticated enough, complex enough and open-ended enough to reveal actual, real scenarios. Sounds a little like God, doesn’t it?
And they should absolutely not rely on their efforts, or reveal them to the public, before they know what they’re doing. Which, to a large degree, they don’t.
So remember, you heard it here first. When I am proven completely wrong I will have changed my e-mail address so don’t bother with the whole nyah-nyah-nyah thing.