Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is a Computer Simulation? A Review of a Passionate Debate

  • Report
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Where should computer simulations be located on the ‘usual methodological map’ (Galison 1996, 120) which distinguishes experiment from (mathematical) theory? Specifically, do simulations ultimately qualify as experiments or as thought experiments? Ever since Galison raised that question, a passionate debate has developed, pushing many issues to the forefront of discussions concerning the epistemology and methodology of computer simulation. This review article illuminates the positions in that debate, evaluates the discourse and gives an outlook on questions that have not yet been addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Barberousse et al. (2009), Beisbart (2011, 2012), Beisbart and Norton (2012), Di Paolo et al. (2000), Dowling (1999), El Skaf and Imbert (2012), Frigg and Reiss (2009), Frigg et al. (2009, 2011), Gramelsberger (2010, 2011), Grüne-Yanoff (2009), Grüne-Yanoff and Weirich (2010), Guala (2002), Hartmann (1996), Humphreys (1990, 2004, 2009), Humphreys and Imbert (2012), Knuuttila (2006), Krohs (2008), Kuorikoski (2012), Küppers and Lenhard (2005), Lenhard (2006, 2007, 2011), Morgan (2003), Morrison (2009), Parker (2009), Winsberg (2001, 2003, 2009, 2010).

  2. Frigg and Reiss (2009), Humphreys (2004, 2009), Gramelsberger (2010, 2011), Winsberg (2001).

  3. Barberousse et al. (2009), Beisbart (2011, 2012), Beisbart and Norton (2012), Di Paolo et al. (2000), Dowling (1999), El Skaf and Imbert (2012), Guala (2002), Kuorikoski (2012), Lenhard (2007, 2011), Morgan (2003), Morrison (2009), Parker (2009), Winsberg (2001, 2003, 2009).

  4. Barberousse et al. (2009), Beisbart (2011, 2012), Frigg and Reiss (2009), Grüne-Yanoff (2009), Grüne-Yanoff and Weirich (2010), Humphreys (2004), Krohs (2008), Lenhard (2006), Winsberg (2010).

  5. A question already addressed by Gramelsberger (2006) and Sundberg (2010), but with a different objective from the present article.

References

  • Barberousse, A., Franceschelli, S., & Imbert, C. (2009). Computer simulations as experiments. Synthese, 169, 557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisbart, C. (2011). A transformation of normal science. Computer simulations from a philosophical perspective. Unpublished habilitation thesis Technical University Dortmund.

  • Beisbart, C. (2012). How can computer simulations produce new knowledge? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 395–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisbart, C., & Norton, J. D. (2012). Why monte carlo simulations are inferences and not experiments. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 26, 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind. Thought experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (2004). Why thought experiments transcend empiricism. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of science (pp. 23–43). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekharan, S., Subramanian, V., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013). Computational modeling: Is this the end of thought experimenting in science? In M. Frappier, L. Meynell, & J. R. Brown (Eds.), Thought experiments in philosophy, science and the arts (pp. 239–260). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohnitz, D. (2006). Gedankenexperimente in der Philosophie. Paderborn: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1964). Introduction to mathematical sociology. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (2005). Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 36, 328–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crookall, D. (2011). Philosophy and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 42, 146–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, E., Noble, J., & Bullock, S. (2000). Simulation models as opaque thought experiment. In M. A. Bedau, J. S. McCaskill, N. H. Packard, & S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Artificial life VII: The seventh international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems (pp. 497–506). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, D. (1999). Experimenting on theories. Science in Context, 12, 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1918–1921). Discussions of lectures in Bad Nauheim. In M. Janssen, R. Schulmann, J. Illy, C. Lehner, D. K. Buchwald (Eds.) (2002), The collected papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: The Berlin Years: Writings (pp. 351–359). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • El Skaf, R., & Imbert, C. (2012). Unfolding in the empirical sciences: Experiments, thought experiments and computer simulations. Synthese, 190, 3451–3474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Modelling norms. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, E., Saine, U., & Saine, T. (1968). The oasis of happiness: Toward an ontology of play. Yale French Studies, 41, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigg, R. P., Hartmann, S., & Imbert, C. (Eds.) (2009). Models and simulations. Special issue. Synthese, 169, 425–626.

  • Frigg, R. P., Hartmann, S., & Imbert, C. (Eds.) (2011). Models and simulations 2. Special issue. Synthese, 180, 1–77.

  • Frigg, R., & Reiss, J. (2009). The philosophy of simulation: Hot new issues or some old stew? Synthese, 169, 593–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1996). Computer simulations and the trading zone. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science. Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 118–157). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (1999). Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham: Mcgraw-Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gramelsberger, G. (2006). Story telling with code-archaeology of climate modelling. TeamEthno-online, 2, 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramelsberger, G. (2010). Computerexperimente. Zum Wandel der Wissenschaft im Zeitalter des Computers. Bielefeld: Transkript.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gramelsberger, G. (2011). What do numerical (climate) models really represent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42, 296–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009). The explanatory potential of artificial societies. Synthese, 169, 539–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Weirich, P. (2010). The philosophy and epistemology of simulation. A review. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 20–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guala, F. (2002). Models, simulations, and experiments. In L. Magnani & N. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: science, technology, values (pp. 59–74). New York: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1992). Do thought experiments have a life of their own? Comments on James Brown, Nancy Nersessian and David Gooding. In A. Fine, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (Eds.), Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association 1992 (Vol. 2, pp. 302–338). East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process: Simulation in the natural and social sciences. In R. Hegselmann, U. Müller, & K. G. Troitzsch (Eds.), Modelling and simulation in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 77–100). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, T., & Massey, G. J. (Eds.) (1991). Thought experiments in science and philosophy. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Humphreys, P. (1990). Computer simulations. In A. Fine, M. Forbes, & L. Wessels (Eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association 1990 (pp. 497–506). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves. Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P. (2009). The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese, 169, 615–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P., & Imbert, C. (Eds.) (2012). Models, simulations and representations. London: Routledge.

  • Knuuttila, T. (2006). From representation to production: Parsers and parsing in language technology. In J. Lenhard, G. Küppers, & T. Shinn (Eds.), Simulation: Pragmatic construction of reality (pp. 41–55). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krohs, U. (2008). How digital computer simulations explain real-world processes. Internationals Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22, 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1964). A function for thought experiments. In M. A. Koyré (Ed.), L’Aventure de la science (Vol. 2). Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuorikoski, J. (2012). Simulation and the sense of understanding. In P. Humphreys & C. Imbert (Eds.), Models, simulations and representations (pp. 168–187). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küppers, G., & Lenhard, J. (2005). Computersimulationen: Modellierungen 2. Ordnung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 36, 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard, J. (2006). Surprised by a nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73, 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard, J. (2007). Computer simulation: The cooperation between experimenting and modeling. Philosophy of Science, 74, 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard, J. (2011). Epistemologie der Iteration. Gedankenexperimente und Simulationsexperimente. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 59, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1960[1893]). The science of mechanics. Transl. by Thomas J. McCormack. Lasalle.: Open Court Publ. Co.

  • Mach, E. (1976[1905]). Knowledge and error. Sketches on the psychology of enquiry. Transl. by Thomas J. McCormack and Paul Foulkes. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • MacLean, M., Russell, W., & Ryall, E. (Eds.) (2015). Philosophical perspectives on play. Routledge.

  • McAllister, J. (1996). The evidential significance of thought experiment in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 27, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. (2003). Experiments without material intervention. Model experiments, virtual experiments, and virtually experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 216–235). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. (2009). Models, measurement, and computer simulation: The changing face of experimentation. Philosophical Studies, 143, 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1992). In the theoretician’s laboratory: Thought experimenting as mental modeling. In Proceedings of the philosophy of science association (Vol. 2, pp. 291–301). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the philosophy of Science Association.

  • Norton, J. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In T. Horowitz & G. J. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 129–148). Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26, 333–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, S. D., & Suppe, F. (2001). Why atmospheric modeling is good science. In P. N. Edwards & C. A. Miller (Eds.), Changing the atmosphere (pp. 67–106). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ørsted, H. C. (1811). First introduction to general physics. In H. C. Ørsted (Ed.), Selected scientific works (pp. 282–309). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, W. S. (2009). Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality. Synthese, 169, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, S. (2011). Introduction: The emergence of the notion of thought experiments. In K. Ierodiakonou & S. Roux (Eds.), Thought experiments in methodological and historical contexts (pp. 1–33). Brill: Leiden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryall, E., Russell, W., & MacLean, M. (Eds.) (2013). The philosophy of play. New York: Routledge.

  • Sageng, J. R., Fossheim, H. J., & Larsen, T. M. (Eds.) (2012). The philosophy of computer games. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Sorensen, R. A. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, M. (2010). Cultures of simulations vs. cultures of calculations? The development of simulation practices in meteorology and astrophysics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41, 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, E. (2011). From data to phenomena and back again: Computer-simulated signatures. Synthese, 182, 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tymoczko, T. (1979). The four-color problem and its philosophical significance. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 57–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. (2001). Simulations, models, and theories: Complex physical systems and their representation. Philosophy of Science, 68(Proceedings), S442–S454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. (2003). Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science, 70, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. (2009). A tale of two methods. Synthese, 169, 575–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, R. (1972). Theorie und Modell. Der Beitrag der Formalisierung zur soziologischen Theoriebildung. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, E. (1972). Das Experiment in den Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Teubner.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Nicole J. Saam

Authors
  1. Nicole J. Saam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole J. Saam.

Additional information

The author would like to thank Claus Beisbart for his valuable comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saam, N.J. What is a Computer Simulation? A Review of a Passionate Debate. J Gen Philos Sci 48, 293–309 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-016-9354-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-016-9354-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation