awComment/Reply on SDFormat: Reply#1

[Arlen Wolpert]

(Hosts note - I added in some headers to clarify the responses,
apologies if I got things mixed up)

1st Reply to Comments:

1) Making the different format attractive to academics
To stimulate Commentary on Target articles by those on tenure
track, such Commentary would be indexed or abstracted like all
SDR articles. This is how the journal, Behavior and Brain Sciences,
handles this problem.

2) Judging work in context:
System dynamacist in the developed countries should be made
aware of the fact that their counterparts in the undeveloped and
developing countries are often supported by repressive
governments, feudal systems, or dictators. One "politically
incorrect" move could lead to disaster for the system dynamicist
and his or her family. Therefore, compared to system dynamicists
in the developed countries, they usually have far less room to
manueuver and to innovate or to initiate high leverage policies.

3) Can it be done?
I take Prof. Saeeds comment of March 25 to indicate that the
work over the past 15 years on the dynamics of economic growth
and political instability in developing countries has not yet
resulted in a high quality model. Nevertheless, I believe that if an
all out attack were mounted by the SD community on this
important problem, a high quality model could be realized within
a few years.
(Hosts Note: Prof. Saeed may want to clarify his meaning but there
have been many high quality models done on just these issues and
Prof. Saeed himself has done many of the best.)

Arlen Wolpert
Independent Scholar
411 Franklin Street, Apt. 1008
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Telephone: 617-547-6994
email: awolpert@world.std.com

["Prof. Khalid Saeed"]

This is to respond to Arlen Wolperts comment on the implications of
my comment on the quality of my own models.

Firstly, it is not for me to judge the quality of my own work; my
academic peers would do this. Given that the models have been published
in a number of learned journals and the two books I have written are well
received, I have no reasons to complain.

As for the implementation of the policy guidelines, it would not be prudent
to press for this for any new piece of knowledge, which after all is only
another view of the complex reality from a different vantage. I think a
bit of humility for the knowledge artifacts we create would facilitate the
search for truth and this will make the world a much better place to live
since it would provide room for reflection without any pressures. Given
enough time in such an environment, there is a good chance that we come
closer to truth.

Let me add that I greatly appreciate Arlens kind words about my work and
that I would continue the work in the academic niche I have selected for
its intrinsic value to me, rather than for any extrinsic rewards. But,
this attitude might very much be a part of my Eastern origin.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Although I would not have time to continue this discussion much longer, I
wish to add a comments on points 2 and 3 of Wolperts messaege:

The fact is that the north-south intellectual devide evident from the
logic of Wolperts conclusions is far more dangerous than the perceived
repression in the developing countries. The learned designs of
development policy design orginating from the north have often had
disasterous implications for the the developing countries in which they
were implemented. This is because the models they were based on lacked
experiencial information, which incidentally is the cornerstone of SD
modeling. I am glad the subject of north-south intellectual divide is now
being openly discussed in the academic cirlces and a respectable body of
literature is developing on it. This should also moderate the kind of
initiatives proposed by Wolpert.

I view our SD work as a humble endeavor in science. Our primary
responsibility is to add value and not push ahead for a revolution. It is
practice with this attitude by our colleagues that has won acceptance of
SD as a serious discipline. I believe our pactice must be disciplined by
science rather than an endeavor to reinvent science and I view all kinds
of pushes to sell to be overbearing and harmful for our field.

Khalid Saeed
saeed@ait.ac.th

[GR383@albnyvms.Bitnet (George Ri]

Much admire Khalids statement:

>I view our SD work as a humble endeavor in science. Our primary
>responsibility is to add value and not push ahead for a revolution. It is
>practice with this attitude by our colleagues that has won acceptance of
>SD as a serious discipline. I believe our pactice must be disciplined by
>science rather than an endeavor to reinvent science and I view all kinds
>of pushes to sell to be overbearing and harmful for our field.
>
>Khalid Saeed
>saeed@ait.ac.th

...GPR

.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@Albnyvms.bitnet
State University of New York at Albany 518-442-3859 (fax:442-3398)
.............................................................................

(Hosts note: I share Georges admiration and I do think this is worth
posting twice.)