David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
As noticed recently by Winsberg (2003), how computer models and simulations get their epistemic credentials remains in need of epistemological scrutiny. My aim in this paper is to contribute to fill this gap by discussing underappreciated features of simulations (such as “path-dependency” and plasticity) which, I’ll argue, affect their validation. The focus will be on composite modeling of complex real-world systems in astrophysics and cosmology. The analysis leads to a reassessment of the epistemic goals actually achieved by this kind of modeling: I’ll show in particular that its realistic ambition and the possibility of empirical confirmation pull in opposite directions.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Hans Halvorson (forthcoming). Theism and Physical Cosmology. In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
Johannes Lenhard (2007). Computer Simulation: The Cooperation Between Experimenting and Modeling. Philosophy of Science 74 (2):176-194.
Eckhart Arnold, Tools of Toys? On Specific Challenges for Modeling and the Epistemology of Models and Computer Simulations in the Social Sciences.
John P. Sullins (2005). Ethics and Artificial Life: From Modeling to Moral Agents. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):139-148.
Isabelle Peschard (2011). Modeling and Experimenting. In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
James Justus (2006). Loop Analysis and Qualitative Modeling: Limitations and Merits. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (5):647-666.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #27,985 of 1,004,639 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #12,428 of 1,004,639 )
How can I increase my downloads?