Talk:Scientific modelling

message: The next list is in a recent change rather ("vernaggeld") made invisable (some google-rates have been added, with term written with "l"//"ll"):
# Climate modelling - 424.000 // 301.000
# Data modelling - 1.650.000 // 636.000
# Ecological modelling - 183.000 // 543.000
# Economical modelling - 365.000 // 493.000
# Climate modelling - 424.000 // 310.000 
# Futures studies
# Geologic modelling
# Graphical modelling
# Hydrographical modelling
# Hydrological modelling
# Hydrogeological modelling
# Mathematical modelling
# Medical modelling
# Meteorological modelling
# Modelling in Epidemiology
# Modelling of scientific inquiry
# Molecular modelling
# Ocean modelling
# Policy modelling
# Simulation
# Software modelling
# Statistical modelling
# Stochastical modelling
# System dynamics
This list represents the titles of some 40 magazines about scientific modelling which offer all kinds of international forums. And every item in this list has an link to the place were more information can be found. - Mdd 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see Wikipedia:Piped link#Use. The purpose of piped links is NOT to provide uniformity in a list. It is to allow an in-text link to fit grammatically into the sentence. The article include several that have little or nothing to do with scientific modelling. DCDuring 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe methodological moddeling should be added as well. Not necessarily by that term, but something like this is missing. Definition of Methodological modelling by Ader, Mellenbergh and Hand (2008): indicates the subsequent activities of (i) translating a substantive research problem into the specification of a class of statistical models (the model space M), (ii) selecting the most relevant subset S C M of statistical models (statistical modelling), and (iii) Interpreting S in terms of the research problem. If this would be incorporated in the page there would also be room to speak about things as Model Search, Fitting of a model, the EH algorithm, etc. Or do you think all this belongs somewhere else? Please excuse any beginner mistakes, I'm new to wikipedia. TesseUndDaan (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of types of Scientific modelling 

message: Now this list was undressed for what reasons, but I restored it. This was not a see also section, where a list is given from all items in Wikipedia related to the subject. This is a lst of existing forms of scientific modelling in reality. Maybe I should have explained this better. However recently I started transforming this listing into text.. and I have got any further yet. I hope I have explained my actions. - Mdd 14:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see Wikipedia:Piped link#Use. The purpose of piped links is NOT to provide uniformity in a list. It is to allow an in-text link to fit grammatically into the sentence. The article include several that have little or nothing to do with scientific modelling. DCDuring 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The original listing back 

message: I started adding some google rates at the types of scientific modelling, which gives a first indication about how notable these subjects are. - Mdd 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe methodological moddeling should be added as well. Not necessarily by that term, but something like this is missing. Definition of Methodological modelling by Ader, Mellenbergh and Hand (2008): indicates the subsequent activities of (i) translating a substantive research problem into the specification of a class of statistical models (the model space M), (ii) selecting the most relevant subset S C M of statistical models (statistical modelling), and (iii) Interpreting S in terms of the research problem. If this would be incorporated in the page there would also be room to speak about things as Model Search, Fitting of a model, the EH algorithm, etc. Or do you think all this belongs somewhere else? Please excuse any beginner mistakes, I'm new to wikipedia. TesseUndDaan (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The listing of types of scientific modelling 

message: I removed the folowing examples. 
** Model of a particle:  in a potential field. In this model we consider a particle as being a point of mass m that describes a trajectory modelled by a function x: R ? R3 given its coordinates in space as a function of time. The potential field is given by a function V:R3 ? R and the trajectory is a solution of the differential equation
:: m \frac{d^2}{dt^2} x(t)  = - \operatorname{grad} V(x(t)). 
:Note this model assumes that the particle is a point mass, which is certainly known to be false in many cases where we use the model, e.g. when we use it as a model of planetary motion.
** Model of rational behavior for a consumer.  In this model we assume a consumer faces a choice of n commodities labelled 1,2,...,n each with a market price p1, p2,..., pn. The consumer is assumed to have a cardinal utility function U (cardinal in the sense that it assigns numerical values to utilities), depending on the amounts of commodities x1, x2,..., xn consumed.  The model further assumes that the consumer has a budget M which she uses to purchase a vector x1, x2,..., xn in such a way as to maximize U(x1, x2,..., xn).  The problem of rational behavior in this model then becomes one of constrained maximization, that is maximize
::  U(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n) 
:subject to
::  \sum_{i=1}^n p_i x_i = M.
: This model has been used in model of general equilibrium theory, particularly to show existence and Pareto optimality of economic equilibria.  However, the fact that this particular formulation assigns numerical values to levels of satisfaction is a source of criticism. But this is not an essential ingredient of the theory and again, the model is an idealization.
** Myers-Briggs personality type.  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a technique that claims to produce a representation of a person's preferences, using four scales. These scales can be combined in various ways to produce 16 personality types. Types are typically denoted by four letters — for example, INTJ (introverted intuition with extroverted thinking) — to represent a person's preferences.  This model is claimed by CPP (formerly known as Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.) to produce a good predictor of a person's career and marriage partner preference. It should be pointed out, see , that there is considerable disagreement among psychologists on whether this assessment technique (and the implied idealized personality model) is of any value.
** Model of political contagion.  Some versions of this model are sometimes referred to as the domino theory.  In the broadest possible terms, according to this model, political movements that take hold in one country are likely to spread to geographically neighboring ones.  This model is surprisingly popular, although as it stands, it is extremely impoverished conceptually, saying nothing about the type of political movement, the degree of geographical proximity, the time scale at which these events take place, etc.
=== Further comment ===
These examples are removed because:
* No of these items are examples of scientific modelling. 
* These examples aren't even examples of genaral types of scientific models, but a random list of some specific types of models. Wikipedia offers articles about hunderds of those items.
* The article itselve gives a list of the more general types of scientific modelling
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples removed 

message: These examples are removed because:
* No of these items are examples of scientific modelling. 
* These examples aren't even examples of genaral types of scientific models, but a random list of some specific types of models. Wikipedia offers articles about hunderds of those items.
* The article itselve gives a list of the more general types of scientific modelling
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comment 

message: This is the worst written Wikipedia page I've ever seen. Look at this sentence, for example:
"Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic use a descriptive interpretation to model reality."
That's as bad as the worst gobbledygook I've seen come out of marketing departments, law firms, and the government. Writing like that is unworthy of Wikipedia and (especially) of the sciences.
I'm a writer, not a scientist, and I came here to answer a simple question: what's the difference between a scientific model and a scientific theory? I searched the relevant pages and I still don't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.240.9 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear. I agree that one sentence doesn't make much sence to me also. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Then you haven't read the page Atmospheric beast that I'm trying to kill. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Writing 

message: Intuitively (not a citable source), I got a real hard problem accepting Logical positivism because it's harsh matter-of-factual statements seems to imply that anything such as modelling is to be regarded as metaphysics and thereby unscientific/evil, since I'm a computer nerd (Nerd quota 93), it made me very angry. Of course, that's my impression, but what about other less political science philosophies? Said: Rursus ☻ 12:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot "cruel statements". Said: Rursus ☻ 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatibility with Philosophy of science?

message: Hi there,
THere is a problem for modelling and modeling on the english wikipedia...
If I type, "Modelling" I get on the Model (person) page... but if I type "Modeling", I get into the Scientific modelling page...
And as far as I know (but I'm not a native speaker) both modelling could be writen with one and two "l"... It's confusing... Do somebody have I idea to solve it ?
Thank's in advance, and thank's to wikipedia contributors which make it so efficient...
PhDam's  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dam s.vador (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modelling/Modeling 

message: I removed the follwoing section here:
:Most bakeries work on a suboptimal level concerning utilization of devices, energy consumption and staff allocation. That results in “bottle-necks”, operation problems, and not achieving the best possible profits. In order to detect these suboptimal processes, it is advantageous to use virtual models. Once created, these models behave like the real system. Thus, they will provide a very detailed look on the production flows, and a powerful tool for production planning, which helps to find and eliminate inefficient production schemes and “bottle-necks”. Hussein, Walid Barakat; Hecker, Florian; Mitzscherling, Martin; and Becker, Thomas (2009), Computer Modelling and Simulation of Bakeries' Production Planning, in: International Journal of Food Engineering: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2, Article 8..
This is about one very specific application of computer simulation, and hardly related to applying scientific modelling in general. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modelling and Simulation of Bakeries 

message: Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now. 
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article section(s) removed  

message: This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This has occurred last year, May 11-13 2008, when I expanded this article. 
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles 

message: * In this edit text is copy/paste from the Business process modelling  article. 
* In this edit text is copy/paste from the Scientific method, simulation, Structure, system and Visualization (computer graphics) articles.
-- Mdd (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: Tell me what you think:
:Models are meant be an abstraction or conceptualization of an environment solely meant to be beneficial. As such they predict behavior, and their merit usually lies in their ability to do so; they may be as large as the World's weather, or they may be as simple as a child's conceptualization of the world on the walk to school. Modeling is fundamentally different from the Scientific Method in that a model is a whole systems view where individual components are not so important as to collapse the entire model if a few of them are misconceived. Conversely the scientific method (from Aristotle) determines what is fact by linking hypothesis through proof and peer review to theory (which is fact), where any errors eliminate the hypothesis. The scientific method does not provide a pathway to knowledge construction, where the modeling approach begins with a generalized structure based on the vast set of givens that we use to describe the surrounding environment. A model is then extended experimentally with new ideas to further strengthen or expand it. If the inclusion of a new idea appears to give benefits, such as creating more profit as in a business model, then the model stays; if not, then out it goes! Logistical accuracy is not important, only an overall benefit from the use of the model. Since a model may produce benefits at its outset, risk is an acceptable part of innovation, where, hopefully, steps take backwards are far outnumbered by steps forward. With increasing benefits come exponential increases in opportunities to develop accuracy as the model quickly gels.
:When limited to the Scientific Method, as most of "cold" science is, one is left adrift in a sea of facts developed (usually from funded studies or doctoral dissertations) that are usually detached and useless in of themselves.  As the facts are connected, the scientific method is applied recursively to increasingly larger pieces preventing rapid construction and practical implementation in a useful time-frame.  Many models are created as spaghetti structures of otherwise disconnected fact, and once implemented are difficult to modify and hence tend break with changing conditions or new conceptions.  (This problem is paralleled in computer systems design, and is the strongest argument for objected-oriented approaches.)   Further there is no environmental connection to the data, and hence a criteria for morality; the only criteria is that the data followed the method without respect for the environment in which the data was collected.--John Bessa (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some introductory text

message: I think that the article can be improved by showing the reader where and why the act of making a model stands in relation to the creation of a theory. 
In the West, many thinkers began with the assumption that humans see simply and directly what is going on. Unconsciously, early science was often based on analogies to human behavior. Humans go up trees because they want to (to get fruit, for instance). But smoke does not really go up because it wants to. Saying, "Smoke goes upward because that is what it wants/needs to do," models smoke behavior on human behavior. 
The world often presents humans with situations that prompt us to make models. For instance, scientists discover that planets circle the sun. They ask themselves why the orbits are circular. They make a (mental or physical) model in which there is an anchor at the center (a physicist standing in his/her lab perhaps), a string, and a weight at the end. The spherical weight at the end of the string is a pretty good model for a planet. Swinging the weight around at the end of the string produces something very similar to a planetary orbit. But what, in nature, is the string? The model is helpful not only for helping us understand better what we already know from experience, but also for helping us ask further questions.
The essential change that occurred in Western science starting at about the time of Kant and Hume was the realization that the model is a creation of the human mind. A related idea is that successful theories are "useful fictions." The word "fiction" not only includes the idea of "not truth" or "not reality" but is appropriately also built on the root word meaning "to build."  Models are creations of the workman in his shop. Fictions are the products of fiction writers. We are presumptuous when we make the easy assumption that because our model or our convenient fiction works we must therefore really know what is going on in the real world. 
The lead of the article describes utilitarian models as we find them today, and it makes it appear that physics (and other parts of science) was here first, and models came along as an afterthought. So we have, e.g., climatology, we have equations, we have data, and then we make a model that predicts hurricanes or does something else that is really neat. But that description puts everything backwards. Humans started with storms and then realized that there were storm systems. They first built "models" (assume a set of boxes filled with air, each of which is heated on a variable basis by the sun...), then got equations to describe the interactions among the part of their models, then got in trouble with the real world because it did not perform as predicted, then made alterations to the math... It wasn't that we got a set of equations by some sudden insight and later decided to make models to show non-scientists how things work.
When humans got into quantum physics they discovered that the models we can build based on our everyday experience of ocean waves, rifle bullets, and the other elements of our common experiential world do not do a very adequate job of describing what is really happening. The map is not the territory. Humans create maps. Humans know the territory by means of maps. Tangential experiences of the territory force humans to modify their maps, but the distinction between map and thing mapped remains. 
I'll see whether I can still find my copy of Philipp Frank's Philosophy of Science. It should be a good source for evidence on these points.P0M (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models and useful fictions 

message: I really liked the following description in the overview that is as well copied in the article of "conceptual models":
"Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system that will not produce theoretical consequences that are contrary to what is found in reality. Predictions or other statements drawn from such a formal system mirror or map the real world only insofar as these scientific models are true.[4]"
:-> However, I checked the original reference and a "more acutal one" of 1961 and I really did not find this citation or even some fragments! Please give the correct reference!!! -- User:153.96.224.2 -  12:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the source was rather incomplete, and I made a correction here. Now the text here is no citation, otherwise the text would be put in quotation marks. This source is only used as a reference. -- Mdd (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freudenthal reference wrong??? 

message: I removed the following paragraph by User:Wingroras because it is off topic and interrupts the flow of the article. I suggest he/she posts it elsewhere, as it's still very interesting. 87.240.204.48 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "assumption" 

message: “See also“ “Grey box completion and validation“ has been removed from this and several other topics. Following advice from Wikipedia if there are no objections (please provide your name and reasons), I plan to reinstate the reference in a weeks time. 
In scientific modelling the method of analysis should be considered (perhaps simulated to ensure feasibility) the removed reference covers techniques of potential application in scientific modelling. In particular most models are incomplete (i.e. a grey box) and thus need completion and validation. This reference seems to be within the appropriate content of the “See also” section see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section. 
BillWhiten (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Grey box completion and validation

message: I don't understand the need for this section Model-based learning in education, with its picture. It just looks like and advertisement for BlendSpace (see the picture). Let's discuss the need for this part. --Tavadyan (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  BlendSpace advertisement? 

message: iiii 119.152.159.130 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  iiii 

message: There is a short bu reliably sourced article on the theory of modelling under General model theory that would make a good fit for this page. It could be described in context here, and the [[Scientific modelling page is itself quite short. Felix QW (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that Conceptual model would be a better fit. Felix QW (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[General model theory]] into [[Scientific modelling]]