Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.
|
The premise is to get the modelled data and real world data to agree. Either the real world data can be incomplete or the model inaccurate. Sometimes the model being in disagreement with the data does mean the data are incomplete, not that the model is in error (either is considered as possible; it's not trying to reach a particular outcome).
This is one example of how the interaction between model and real world data leads to better understanding:
Pliocene Climate Lessons » American Scientist
(The peer reviewed papers that underpin the American Scientist article are listed at the end of the article.)