|Abstract||Computer simulations are usually considered to be non-explanatory because, when a simulation reveals that a property is instantiated in a system, it does not enable the exact identification of what it is that brings this property out (relevance requirement). Conversely, analytical deductions are widely considered to yield explanations and understanding. In this paper, I emphasize that explanations should satisfy the relevance requirement and argue that the more they do so, the more they have explanatory value. Finally, I show that this emphasis on relevance has the unexpected consequence that simulations can sometimes be explanatory.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
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.
Paul Thagard (2005). Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):295 - 316.
By Nic Damnjanovic (2005). Deflationism and the Success Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):53–67.
John L. King (1976). Statistical Relevance and Explanatory Classification. Philosophical Studies 30 (5):313 - 321.
Anouk Barberousse, Sara Franceschelli & Cyrille Imbert (2009). Computer Simulations as Experiments. Synthese 169 (3):557 - 574.
Jaakko Kuorikoski & Petri Ylikoski (2010). Explanatory Relevance Across Disciplinary Boundaries: The Case of Neuroeconomics. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):219–228.
Jaakko Kuorikoski (2011). Simulation and the Sense of Understanding. In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
Till Grüne-Yanoff (2009). The Explanatory Potential of Artificial Societies. Synthese 169 (3):539 - 555.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #78,761 of 549,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,337 of 549,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?