Christians Shouldn’t Be Dismissive of Scientific Modeling
Image
Projections from an IHME model.
Over the last several weeks I’ve encountered a range of negative views toward the models epidemiologists have been using in the struggle against COVID-19. Skepticism is a healthy thing. But rejecting models entirely isn’t skepticism. Latching onto fringe theories isn’t skepticism. Rejecting the flattening-the-curve strategy because it’s allegedly model-based isn’t skepticism either.
These responses are mostly misunderstandings of what models are and of how flattening-the-curve came to be.
I’m not claiming expertise in scientific modeling. Most of this is high school level science class stuff. But for a lot of us, high school science was a long time ago, or wasn’t very good—or we weren’t paying attention.
What do models really do?
Those tasked with explaining science to us non-scientists define and classify scientific models in a variety of ways.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, describes at least 8 varieties of models, along with a good bit of historical and philosophical background. They’ve got about 18,000 words on it.
A much simpler summary comes from the Science Learning Hub, a Science-education project in New Zealand. Helpfully, SLH doesn’t assume readers have a lot of background.
In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly. Models are central to what scientists do, both in their research as well as when communicating their explanations. (Scientific Modeling)
Noteworthy here: models are primarily descriptive, not predictive. Prediction based on a model is estimating how an observed pattern probably extends into what has not been observed, whether past, present, or future.
Encyclopedia Britannica classifies models as physical, conceptual, or mathematical. It’s the mathematical models that tend to stir up the most distrust and controversy, partly because the math is way beyond most of us. We don’t know what a “parametrized Gaussian error function” is (health service utilization forecasting team, p.4; see also Gaussian, Error and Complementary Error function).
But Christians should be the last people to categorically dismiss models. Any high school science teacher trained in a Christian university can tell you why. I’ve been reminded why most recently in books by Nancy Pearcy, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Samuel Gregg: Whether scientists acknowledge it or not, the work of science is only possible at all because God created an orderly world in which phenomena occur according to patterns in predictable ways. For Christians, scientific study—including the use of models to better understand the created order—is study of the glory of God through what He has made (Psalm 19:1).
Most of us aren’t scientists, but that’s no excuse for scoffing at one of the best tools we have for grasping the orderliness of creation.
Should we wreck our economy based on models?
The “models vs. the economy” take on our current situation doesn’t fit reality very well. Truth? The economy is also managed using models. A few examples:
- Calculating the unemployment rate
- Unemployment forecasting (also this)
- Business forecasting
- Cost Modeling
Beyond economics, modeling is used all the time for everything from air traffic predictions to vehicle fire research, to predictive policing (no, it isn’t like “Minority Report”).
Models are used extensively in all sorts of engineering. We probably don’t even get dressed in the morning without using products that are partly the result of modeling—even predictive modeling—in the design process.
Christians should view models as tools used by countless professionals—many of whom are believers—in order to try to make life better for people. Pastors have books and word processors. Plumbers have propane torches. Engineers and scientists have models. They’re all trying to help people and fulfill their vocations.
(An excellent use of predictive mathematical modeling…)
Why are models often “wrong”?
An aphorism about firearms says, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Implications aside, it’s a true statement. It’s also true that math is never wrong; people are wrong. Why? Math is just an aspect of reality. In response to mathematical reality, humans can misunderstand, miscalculate, and misuse, but reality continues to be what it is, regardless.
The fact that the area of a circle is always its radius squared times an irrational (unending) number we call “pi” (π) remains true, no matter how many times I misremember the formula, plug the wrong value in for π, botch the multiplication, or incorrectly measure the radius.
The point is that models, as complex representations of how variables relate to each other and to constants, are just math. In that sense, models are also never “wrong”—just badly executed or badly used by humans. That said, a model is usually developed for a particular purpose and can be useless or misleading for the intended purpose, so, in that sense, “wrong.”
When it comes to using models to find patterns and predict future events, much of the trouble comes from unrealistic expectations. It helps to keep these points in mind:
- Using models involves inductive reasoning: data from many individual observations is used in an effort to generalize.
- Inductive reasoning always results in probability, never certainty.
- The more data a model is fed, and the higher the quality of that data, the more probable its projections will be.
- When data is missing for parts of the model, assumptions have to be made.
- Changes in a model’s predictions are not really evidence of “failure.” As the quantity and quality of data changes, and assumptions are replaced with facts, good models change their predictions.
- True professionals, whether scientists or other kinds of analysts, know that models of complex data are only best guesses—and they don’t claim otherwise.
- The professionals that develop and use models in research are far more tentative and restrained in their conclusions than people who popularize the findings (e.g., the media).
In the case of COVID-19, one of the most influential models has been one of IHME’s (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation). Regarding that model, an excellent Kaiser Family Foundation article notes:
Models often present “best guess” or median forecasts/projections, along with a range of uncertainty. Sometimes, these uncertainty ranges can be very large. Looking at the IHME model again, on April 13, the model projected that there would be a 1,648 deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. on April 20, but that the number of deaths could range from 362 to 4,989.
Poor design and misuse have done some damage to modeling’s reputation. Some famous global-warming scandals come to mind. But in the “Climategate” controversy, for example, raw data itself was apparently falsified. The infamous hockey stick graph appears to have involved both manipulated raw data and misrepresentation of what the model showed. Modeling itself was not the problem.
(XKD isn’t completely wrong … there is such a thing as “better garbage”)
Why bother with models?
Given the uncertainty built into predictive mathematical models, why bother to use them? Usually, the answer is “because we don’t have anything better.” Models are about providing decision-makers, who don’t have the luxury of waiting for certainty, with evidence so they don’t have to rely completely on gut instinct. It’s not evidence that stands alone. It’s not incontrovertible evidence. It’s an effort to use real-world data to detect patterns and anticipate what might happen next.
As for COVID-19, the idea that too many sick at once would overwhelm hospitals and ICUs, and that distancing can help slow the infection rate and avoid that disaster, isn’t a matter of inductive-reasoning from advanced statistical models. It’s mostly ordinary deduction (see LiveScience and U of M). If cars enter a parking lot much faster than other cars exit, you eventually get a nasty traffic jam. You don’t need a model to figure that out.
You do need one if you want to anticipate when a traffic jam will happen, how severe it might be, how long it might last, and the timing of steps that might help reduce or avoid it.
Leaders of cities, counties, states, and nations have to manage large quantities of resources and plan for future outcomes. To do that, they have to make educated guesses about what steps to take now to be ready for what might happen next week, next month, and next year. It’s models that make those guesses educated ones rather than random ones.
Highly technical work performed by exceptionally smart fellow human beings is a gift from God. Christians should recognize that. Because we’ve been blessed with these people and their abilities (and their models) COVID-19 isn’t killing us on anywhere near the scale that the Spanish Flu did in 1918 (Gottlieb is interesting on this). That’s divine mercy!
(Note to those hung up on the topic of “the mainstream media”: none of the sources I linked to here for support are “mainstream media.” Top image: IHME.)
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 180 views
Furthermore, most of the scientific/academia community (I’ll refer to to them as “their/them”) hates God, and their science forces them to promote anti-God positions. This logically leads them to political ends, because any politics that supports God or even the possibility of a Creator undermines their anti-God world view and will destroy their so-called science, ending their careers. This all makes sense when viewed from a spiritual standpoint, but it is apparent that the more exposure even a Christian has to the their worldly philosophy the easier it is to being to agree with their positions and ignore the reality of the spiritual war being waged by them, those friendly, really smart people, against God.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Bert Perry]That would be a basic genetic fallacy, and of that you ought to repent, Mr. Noel.
What you think is an attack, I think of as a rebuke.
Take it whichever way you want.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Aaron Blumer][…] my thinking about science has changed over the last couple of years… and the growing impression that conservative Christians/fundamentalists have largely become anti-science. Which is unfortunate, if not tragic. But I was doing some growing in this area in 2019, and events of 2020 have accelerated it. It grieves me to see so many people I know (most in real life, not here at SI) latch on to whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is.
The reason this has progressed to the point where you think this is that Christians (and the public in general) get their “knowledge” of science from the presentation in the press, rather than from actual books or scientific journals. And since the press (and unfortunately, some scientists) have demonstrated their willingness to abuse science to achieve whatever ends (political, social, etc) they have in mind, and use it as a club to beat those not “in the know” into submission, people start to distrust not only the messenger, but the actual science behind the messenger. That’s sad, but not particularly unexpected.
I won’t claim any specialized knowledge into the epidemiological models being used for coronavirus, or even mathematical modeling in general. However, I do have degrees in math/statistics and computer science, and while I won’t pit my “expertise” against those here who have math/medical PhD’s, or even engineers who use models more than I do, I also think I understand modeling reasonably well, at least better than the average U.S. citizen. A model that “predicts” possible casualties > 10-20x the actual number is likely either poorly constructed, using bad assumptions, or using bad data, or maybe a combination of those factors. OR, it could just be that the model is fine but is being misused by those reporting on it. Either way, I’m not likely to trust it when seeing those large discrepancies unless I can read everything (including the model, assumptions, and data) for myself, especially when those reporting on it have demonstrated their willingness to obscure the truth in favor of their agenda.
This is why, unfortunately, it’s difficult (if not impossible) for the average person to completely distinguish the science from the politics, even when we wish to do so.
Dave Barnhart
Can we all agree on one thing - that the next time the world is called to look to the experts, everyone will be even more skeptical than they are this time? Maybe that’s a dangerous reality, but there is no one to blame but the experts themselves. They need to step up their game in how and what they communicate.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
scientists were “priests of fact” as Aaron suggests, but that is not the reality.
What if … epidemiologists in civil service, and in research facilities, are dedicated professionals trying to do their best amidst a lot of uninformed criticism and scrutiny from people who no idea what they’re talking about?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]What if … epidemiologists in civil service, and in research facilities, are dedicated professionals trying to do their best amidst a lot of uninformed criticism and scrutiny from people who no idea what they’re talking about?
So let’s say that they are what you say they are. In most cases, I don’t have reason to doubt it. That doesn’t mean I accept the lecturing on the “meaning” of their words and findings from those who designate themselves the official interpreters of the facts, rather than just passing on the facts.
And more importantly, they’re just one set of experts. They can tell me about how the course of Covid is going to go, how many likely dead, etc. What they can’t tell me is how many are going to die because they can’t have “non-essential” elective surgeries, or how many businesses are going to close, and the eventual cost to our society of that step, or how many will commit suicide, or how many will starve, etc. In other words, this isn’t just an easy “people are going to DIE from Covid so STAY HOME!” decision.
Dave Barnhart
[TylerR]What if … epidemiologists in civil service, and in research facilities, are dedicated professionals trying to do their best amidst a lot of uninformed criticism and scrutiny from people who no idea what they’re talking about?
It’s not that I disagree with you, and we should assume the best in others. But what if most of those professionals believe the universe is billions of years old and that humans evolved from primordial goo? And what if many of those professionals are hostile in their thinking toward anyone who claims the earth is young and that it was created by God in six days?
Just sayin.’
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
You wrote:
But what if most of those professionals believe the universe is billions of years old and that humans evolved from primordial goo? And what if many of those professionals are hostile in their thinking toward anyone who claims the earth is young and that it was created by God in six days?
Yes, but what are you going to do about it? Dismiss it all because you don’t like their worldviews? You don’t do that with laws. I don’t do that when I’m forced to consider whether an insurance company “discriminates” against a transgender individual because it has a blanket prohibition against breast augmentation for male-to-female surgeries. I’m obligated to consider that our state statute defines “sexual orientation” to include a subjective feeling of “gender identity,” and that its illegal to “discriminate” on that basis. This is a real case!
Do you rebel against all authorities that don’t share a Christian worldview? I don’t understand what you want to do.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
was that models are scientific analyses of the situation. Ok. Say I take that as valid. So what?
What do you do with that model? That is the question.
If you are honest and unbiased, and you predict say 200,000 deaths, you call the leaders to act. So they do.
If it was all so antiseptic, that would be great. But it isn’t.
There is a drum playing marching music in the background. That drumbeat is a call to defeat Trump. To deride everything he does. To call him callous for “not believing the models” and acting on them.
Trump shuts down the economy to save lives. The media then reports “great depression hits America.” Why? To weaken Trump. Not to be honest.
Its all designed to weaken a man they want gone.
That is the problem. This isn’t about science, or data, or medicine. Its about politics and culture war.
[JNoël]It’s not that I disagree with you, and we should assume the best in others. But what if most of those professionals believe the universe is billions of years old and that humans evolved from primordial goo? And what if many of those professionals are hostile in their thinking toward anyone who claims the earth is young and that it was created by God in six days?
Just sayin.’
Well, either the assumptions they make, the data they present, and the correlations they derive work, or they do not. It has nothing to do with their philosophical and religious presuppositions. Your claim is a genetic fallacy that proves nothing except that you are unable or unwilling to make a real argument.
It’s also false. Sorry, I’ve spent a lot of years in and around secular universities (Michigan State and Colorado, my daughters are at Winona State), and in the sciences and engineering, most professors, whatever their personal views, really want to simply do the best job they can in teaching and research. Science tends to have right answers that push out ideologues from the start, and going further, students quickly figure out who has an agenda—and avoid those professors. That avoidance is career death to a professor in the sciences because you need students to teach, and grad students to publish. Professors who are avoided by students don’t get tenure, plain and simple.
I realize that the stereotype you’re using is popular in some sectors of fundamentalism, but it’s time to let it go. Deal with the evidence, not the personal views of those presenting it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR]Yes, but what are you going to do about it?
Do you rebel against all authorities that don’t share a Christian worldview? I don’t understand what you want to do.
Really, my only point in this conversation is that we should not simply accept everything the anti-God worldview scientists are telling us, and to recognize that their lack of the Spirit will often lead them to conclusions that feed their flesh more than a Christian walking in the Spirit. It can look different for different scientists - some for money, some for political gain, some for notoriety among their peers, and, of course, some really are just looking for truth and are trying to do the right thing.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[Bert Perry]Well, either the assumptions they make, the data they present, and the correlations they derive work, or they do not. It has nothing to do with their philosophical and religious presuppositions. Your claim is a genetic fallacy that proves nothing except that you are unable or unwilling to make a real argument.
Seriously? I don’t know who you spent time with, but this is not at all what I have seen and experienced. The philosophical and religious presuppositions absolutely drive their decision-making. Ultimately, philosophical and religious presuppositions drive every human’s decision-making, whether we want to believe it or not. Secular science is anti-God and is unwilling to acknowledge any study that would take them down the road of needing to acknowledge the possibility of a God.
[Bert Perry]It’s also false. Sorry, I’ve spent a lot of years in and around secular universities (Michigan State and Colorado, my daughters are at Winona State), and in the sciences and engineering, most professors, whatever their personal views, really want to simply do the best job they can in teaching and research. Science tends to have right answers that push out ideologues from the start, and going further, students quickly figure out who has an agenda—and avoid those professors. That avoidance is career death to a professor in the sciences because you need students to teach, and grad students to publish. Professors who are avoided by students don’t get tenure, plain and simple.
Yes, they do - scientists regularly push out religious ideologues. How many of the professors you spent a lot of years in and around did you try to get to recognize the truth of creation and how foolish and unscientific their belief in science is?
If you were a scientist, striving to excel in the field, they would mark you as an ideologue and marginalize your beliefs, finishing any aspirations you would have in advancing within their community. If you did share and argued your rightly held belief in Creation with them and they took no action against you, then they did not see you as a threat and simply didn’t bother with pushing back (“You believe in creation? How quaint. Now let’s get back to the real work.”).
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
We’re pretty far afield at this point I think.
To refocus, let me ask this: what ideology would bias scientists to prefer that people die rather than that they live?
There are a few very very far left folks who believe that we should all die so the planet will be saved/restored to it’s primal perfection. This is a minority fringe view at best… And these aren’t the sort of people who dedicate their careers to medical science.
So other than the far fetched notion that all these independent and competitive medical data modelers colluded to defeat Trump, what bias could their be that would actually make any difference in this kind of work?
It’s all well and good to talk about bias in climatology and anti-creation bias in biology and physics. But what sort of bias would make make career healers want to rig their models so that they crash economies all over the world and cause a lot of people to die who wouldn’t have if they’d told the truth?
It’s great spy thriller movie stuff, a great story, but it’s not anything close to probable.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I just watched this entire interview with Anne Schuchat, Principal Deputy Director of the CDC.
It’s well worth the time to watch (1.25 x or faster helps), especially those who are inclined to take a dim view of the science. Just watch it and then tell me where the bias is, where the unprofessionalism is, where the politics is.
Anne is not a scientist, per se, but is clearly neck deep in all the medical science going on and the science that is driving what CDC is trying to do…. So tell me where the bad science is.
I’m sure some won’t find it persuasive, but it’s a good example of why I see these people as professionals who are working hard to help people… Not to achieve political goals.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion