Because this is just mathematical cargo-cult scientism. If the basis for deciding "the model itself may require tweaking or redesign" is that "you still think the results look wrong", you're not doing science.

It's not scientism. You're simply jumping to an invalid conclusion. Stucchio could not have been clearer that simple Python monte carlo models were tools for discussion, not magic oracles.

Tools for discussion about what? Python coding? Monte Carlo methods?

Unrealistic results are an indicator that something might be wrong with the model design or model choice which deserves investigating. Why is that such a bad thing?

If you're modeling investment growth and your model is:

  future_value = investment_amt * (interest_rate ^ num_years)

or

  future_value = investment_amt * (1 + (interest_rate * num_years))

you might realize after running it a few times and seeing incorrect results that the model is flawed (first case) or inappropriate (second case) and fix it to:

  future_value = investment_amt * ((1 + interest_rate) ^ num_years)

You are doing science. The first part: forming a hypothesis.

You really don't understand the negativity? The OP offered a ridiculously simplistic model in an obnoxious and aggressive style, oblivious to the gaps in his own knowledge claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy.

So, despite the fact that there was some trifling value to the post, he's really going to garner a lot of negativity.

Can you quote where he "claimed that this analytic framework was the end-all in terms of analyzing the policy"?

At the start:

> The basis of any informed discussion is a mathematical model.

And then towards the end:

> My conclusions are simply the logical result of my assumptions plus basic math - if I’m wrong, either Python is computing the wrong answer, I got really unlucky in all 32,768 simulation runs, or one of my assumptions is wrong.

> My assumption being wrong is the most likely possibility. Luckily, this is a problem that is solvable via code.

That sounds to me like him asserting mathematical models, expressed in code are the only reasonable means we have for knowledge. I don't think he's quite made that case.

For the proper definition of "analytic framework",

"shut the fuck up and write some fucking code"

This is explicitly an assertion that there won't be anything important that can be added to the debate that cannot be expressed in code.

On the flip side, he absolutely doesn't assert that the particular model is the end-all in terms of anything - he expresses desire to see improvements.

I was contrasting using a mathematical model to simply repeating talking points and poorly thought out assertions (i.e., every discussion about BI that shows up on HN).

Obviously gathering data would be an incredibly valuable contribution to the discussion. I should have been more clear on that point, I guess I just thought it went without saying.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but I for one certainly didn't interpret anything you'd said as devaluing evidence. Obviously, data can be expressed as code...