Would you make a distinction between “visual” formalization (drawing pictures) and “symbolic” formalization (writing equations or symbolic logic etc).
I only mention because I’m guilty of wanting to keep too much on my head, and a chart, graph, diagram, etc always helps in those situations… Thinking about it now, I should almost always just start with that… but then thinking about this post, maybe not? :)
Andrew Gelman distinguishes these. He believes in symbolic formalization but doesn’t get Judea Pearl’s DAGs. I personally find visualization to be very useful, not always in DAGs, sometimes simply in expected patterns. I also have found equational models to be useful on different occasions. Other times I find analytical models extremely difficult to follow because the explication is too dense. They are certainly distinct types of formalization, but none is free of the potential risks of non-deconfusing that adamShimi lays out.
I honestly didn’t thought about drawings at all, because I never heard anyone call a drawing (that was not literally a graph or a category diagram) a formalization.
Looking quickly, I feel my advice doesn’t apply to drawings because I don’t expect them to have the same pull that formalizations can have, and drawings definitely don’t abide by mathematical standards.
Would you make a distinction between “visual” formalization (drawing pictures) and “symbolic” formalization (writing equations or symbolic logic etc).
I only mention because I’m guilty of wanting to keep too much on my head, and a chart, graph, diagram, etc always helps in those situations… Thinking about it now, I should almost always just start with that… but then thinking about this post, maybe not? :)
Andrew Gelman distinguishes these. He believes in symbolic formalization but doesn’t get Judea Pearl’s DAGs. I personally find visualization to be very useful, not always in DAGs, sometimes simply in expected patterns. I also have found equational models to be useful on different occasions. Other times I find analytical models extremely difficult to follow because the explication is too dense. They are certainly distinct types of formalization, but none is free of the potential risks of non-deconfusing that adamShimi lays out.
I honestly didn’t thought about drawings at all, because I never heard anyone call a drawing (that was not literally a graph or a category diagram) a formalization.
Looking quickly, I feel my advice doesn’t apply to drawings because I don’t expect them to have the same pull that formalizations can have, and drawings definitely don’t abide by mathematical standards.