An Individual-Based Model of Innovation Diffusion Mixing Social Value and Individual Benefit Defuant Huet Amblard 2005

This was the example of a recent paper that shows that this work hasn't changed in 30 years (1978).  And i can see that, there isn't really any falsifiability, at least not the way they structured it.  It does have lots of parameters though.  The idea is to model popularity and fads.  They explore the idea that a person is more or less persuasive when they are talking to someone they agree with or disagree with.  Modeling this, they get some complicated results that make predictions for society.  or atleast 'guide decision making'  i thought it was interesting enough, though I didn't really invest in it enough to really consider the possibility offered by this paper of deeper insights into how groups work.  

One thing that this paper Did get me thinking about:
The results of a model can be predicted in a real phenomenon to the extent that one accepts not only the models assumptions in the reality but the model's omissions as well.  My model of economic growth assumes rationality and role of GDP and all that, and it omits social factors, history and persistent inefficiencies.  I have to accept the assumptions and the omissions.  That was my old account of the validity of experiments on models as replacements for experiments in the corresponding reality.  But this paper is going to require me to nuance that.

We read papers that were much simpler than this that, coarsely, had analogous results.  Now this model is trying to explain more and it has more parameters.  It 'quantifies' things like 'the media', 'social opinion', 'social opinion uncertainty' and 'un/popularity'.  Should I say that it is making more assumptions or fewer omissions?  I guess both, as long as I am ok with the remaining omissions and all these new assumptions.  In a way, it is easier to disagree with; it is a more honest model, because it is more possible to make assumptions explicit than omissions.  It is also easier to disagree with because it introduces way too much complexity.  

This paper does allow them to make this argument:
'No more than these parameters are sufficient conditions for innovation diffusion in society to the extent that one accepts the models omissions and assumptions.'

Not a very strong case, i guess, but science is incremental (bad consolation).