Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
As a simulation depends on its base data and the mathematical expressions selected to model it, there is certainly the danger that data and expressions are used selectively, whether consciously or unconsciously, to produce a desired outcome. One would hope the scientific community would monitor this but how many people would have a nuts and bolts understanding of the particular simulation in question?
Regards, Rob.
|
How many understand the mechanical internals of an aircraft? a car? a lawnmower? or some other piece of machinery?
You can if you want to but many do not, content to use until it no longer works and have a mechanic they trust to look after it. If it does not work to some standard (tangible and/or intangible) then that manufacturer will soon be out of business.
Often things are built from known pieces put together in various ways likewise with simulations. Many are built on various libraries and the libraries are generally well documented, tested etc. This enables further confidence to be obtained. Nevertheless short of every person using the simulation reading every line of code making it up, understanding it and so forth then a level of black-box abstraction is essential. Still if the simulation in question does not give expected results in simple test cases then warning flags will be raised.
It also comes back to levels of documentation available especially with regards to the assumptions made, nature of the inputs required and the nature of the underlying model(s)/mathematics.
Ultimately the "market" is "self-regulated" (peer review etc) so the adage "buyer beware" applies.