These models predicted growth followed by collapse. The first part has been proven correct, but there is little evidence for the second. Acting like past observations of growth are evidence of future collapse seems like an unusual example of Goodman’s New Riddle of Induction in the wild.
To clarify—“little evidence” implies that you think observations of current conditions aligning with model predictions, e.g. “Previous studies that attempted to do this found that the model’s worst-case scenarios accurately reflected real-world developments,” are weak?
These models predicted growth followed by collapse. The first part has been proven correct, but there is little evidence for the second. Acting like past observations of growth are evidence of future collapse seems like an unusual example of Goodman’s New Riddle of Induction in the wild.
Thank you, so helpful!
To clarify—“little evidence” implies that you think observations of current conditions aligning with model predictions, e.g. “Previous studies that attempted to do this found that the model’s worst-case scenarios accurately reflected real-world developments,” are weak?