David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 190 (12):2367-2390 (2013)
‘The problem with simulations is that they are doomed to succeed.’ So runs a common criticism of simulations—that they can be used to ‘prove’ anything and are thus of little or no scientific value. While this particular objection represents a minority view, especially among those who work with simulations in a scientific context, it raises a difficult question: what standards should we use to differentiate a simulation that fails from one that succeeds? In this paper we build on a structural analysis of simulation developed in previous work to provide an evaluative account of the variety of ways in which simulations do fail. We expand the structural analysis in terms of the relationship between a simulation and its real-world target emphasizing the important role of aspects intended to correspond and also those specifically intended not to correspond to reality. The result is an outline both of the ways in which simulations can fail and the scientific importance of those various forms of failure.
|Keywords||Computer simulation Game theory Model Simulation Scientific methodology|
|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
Judea Pearl (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press.
James Woodward (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford University Press.
Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Kendall L. Walton (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ulrich Krohs (2008). How Digital Computer Simulations Explain Real-World Processes. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):277 – 292.
Eckhart Arnold, The Dark Side of the Force: When Computer Simulations Lead Us Astray and ``Model Think'' Narrows Our Imagination --- Pre Conference Draft for the Models and Simulation Conference, Paris, June 12-14 ---. [REVIEW]
Keith R. Sawyer (2004). Social Explanation and Computational Simulation. Philosophical Explorations 7 (3):219 – 231.
Roman Frigg & Julian Reiss (2009). The Philosophy of Simulation: Hot New Issues or Same Old Stew? Synthese 169 (3):593 - 613.
Karsten Weber (2007). Simulationen in den Sozialwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 38 (1):111 - 126.
Claus Beisbart (2012). How Can Computer Simulations Produce New Knowledge? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):395-434.
Marisa Velasco (2002). Experimentacion y Tecnicas Computacionales. Theoria 17 (2):317-331.
Whit Schonbein (2010). Can Computational Simulations of Language Emergence Support a 'Use' Theory of Meaning? Philosophical Psychology 23 (1):59-74.
Sara Franceschelli (2009). Computer Simulations as Experiments. Synthese 169 (3):557 - 574.
Denis Phan & Franck Varenne (2010). Agent-Based Models and Simulations in Economics and Social Sciences: From Conceptual Exploration to Distinct Ways of Experimenting. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 13 (1).
Matthew W. Parker (2009). Computing the Uncomputable; or, the Discrete Charm of Second-Order Simulacra. Synthese 169 (3):447 - 463.
Anouk Barberousse, Sara Franceschelli & Cyrille Imbert (2009). Computer Simulations as Experiments. Synthese 169 (3):557 - 574.
Added to index2011-08-12
Total downloads41 ( #88,017 of 1,780,181 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #166,601 of 1,780,181 )
How can I increase my downloads?