I've created a simple mathmatical model that suggests they wouldn't get created in the first place, so we no longer need to discuss whether banning them was a good idea or not, it just happened naturally, and there's nothing anyone could have done to change that.
And the obviously hyperbolical nature of that model still doesn't prevent you from creating it or from it leading to potential further research oppurtunities (in fact,please do release the paper that results from such,I'd love to read it.) and following logically from that it still doesn't prevent anyone from creating a model that disagrees or from following any potential research opputunities that such would lead to.
The validity of a mathematical model is dependent solely upon it's internal (and,depending on the extent of the research,external) consistency.Whether it possess any form of 'accuracy to the real world' only comes into play when people who don't understand this attempt to use it to justify their preconceptions.
Individual agents have a mild preference for publishing only models I agree with. They will never publish anything that I 2/3 disagree with (I rank all published papers in order of preference and the bottom 1/3 fail this test) and will immediately retract anything they have published that I disagree with to that extent and replace it with something I do agree with a random amount that places it in the top 66%. We start with them having published things that I randomly agree or disagree with.
No other factor than my agreement will have any impact on their decision to publish or retract.
Surprisingly, with only this mild preference people will automatically self censor and not publish any models I disagree with.
In reality, it's a series of laws that stops them, but we've just proved it's natural so really do those laws even matter?
It would help if you read the parent comment and made a response to its contents. In so far, you've just validated his point - as a member of "the public" not understanding science and using partial truths to reinforce previously held beliefs.
The point I think the parent is trying to make is that the problem is not scientists creating models, the problem is people not understanding the models and using it as an excuse to be vicious; or politicians using an untrue view of models to further their own agendas.
