Some virtues of modeling with both hands
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Webb distinguishes two endeavors she calls animal modeling and animat modeling and advocates for the former. I share her preference and point to additional virtues of modeling actual biological mechanisms (animal modeling). As Webb argues, animat modeling should be regarded as modeling of specific, but madeup, biological mechanisms. I contend that modeling made-up mechanisms in situations in which we have some knowledge of the actual mechanisms involved is modeling with one hand—the good one—tied behind one’s back.1 The hand that is used in animat modeling is constructing and evaluating models by whether they behave in the right way—do they exhibit the particular phenomenon one is trying to understand? The good hand that is disavowed seeks to use evidence about the mechanism employed in real living systems both for inspiration in designing the model and for evaluating the model. Denying oneself use of one’s good hand both limits one’s access to valuable evidence for evaluating a model and denies oneself access to a potent discovery strategy. Webb draws attention to one reason to employ the good hand—if models are to be relevant to biology (and not just characterize hypothetical mechanisms), then the component parts and operations specified in the model must in some way map onto those in actual biological organisms. Especially if one accepts the possibility of multiple realizations, then if one only uses behavior to evaluate the model one may well have described an alternative realization than that found in real organisms. To determine that one has modeled the actual realization, it is necessary to compare the proposed mechanism with the actual mechanism—does it..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Ashenhurst (1996). Ontological Aspects of Information Modeling. Minds and Machines 6 (3):287-394.
William Bechtel & Adele A. Abrahamsen (2013). Thinking Dynamically About Biological Mechanisms: Networks of Coupled Oscillators. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 18 (4):707-723.
Edoardo Datteri & Guglielmo Tamburrini (2007). Biorobotic Experiments for the Discovery of Biological Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 74 (3):409-430.
Thomas Sugar & Michael McBeath (2001). Robotic Modeling of Mobile Ball-Catching as a Tool for Understanding Biological Interceptive Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1078-1080.
Dennis J. Moberg (2000). Role Models and Moral Exemplars. Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (3):675-696.
Arthur M. Jacobs & Jonathan Grainger (1999). Modeling a Theory Without a Model Theory, or, Computational Modeling “After Feyerabend”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):46-47.
William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen (2010). Dynamic Mechanistic Explanation: Computational Modeling of Circadian Rhythms as an Exemplar for Cognitive Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):321-333.
James Justus (2006). Loop Analysis and Qualitative Modeling: Limitations and Merits. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (5):647-666.
Added to index2009-06-26
Total downloads94 ( #36,838 of 1,780,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)32 ( #23,108 of 1,780,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?