Authors
Claus Beisbart
University of Bern
Abstract
Computer simulations and experiments share many important features. One way of explaining the similarities is to say that computer simulations just are experiments. This claim is quite popular in the literature. The aim of this paper is to argue against the claim and to develop an alternative explanation of why computer simulations resemble experiments. To this purpose, experiment is characterized in terms of an intervention on a system and of the observation of the reaction. Thus, if computer simulations are experiments, either the computer hardware or the target system must be intervened on and observed. I argue against the first option using the non-observation argument, among others. The second option is excluded by e.g. the over-control argument, which stresses epistemological differences between experiments and simulations. To account for the similarities between experiments and computer simulations, I propose to say that computer simulations can model possible experiments and do in fact often do so.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s13194-017-0181-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,777
External links

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

Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Behaviorism 15 (1):73-82.
How Models Are Used to Represent Reality.Ronald N. Giere - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):742-752.
Representing and Intervening.Ian Hacking - 1984 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (4):381-390.
Who is a Modeler?Michael Weisberg - 2007 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2):207-233.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How Can Computer Simulations Produce New Knowledge?Claus Beisbart - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):395-434.
Computer Simulation and the Features of Novel Empirical Data.Greg Lusk - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56:145-152.
Experiments, Simulations, and Epistemic Privilege.Emily C. Parke - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (4):516-536.
What is a Computer Simulation? A Review of a Passionate Debate.Nicole Saam - 2017 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 48 (2):293-309.
Why Monte Carlo Simulations Are Inferences and Not Experiments.Claus Beisbart & John D. Norton - 2012 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (4):403-422.
A Tale of Two Methods.Eric Winsberg - 2009 - Synthese 169 (3):575 - 592.
Experimentacion y Tecnicas Computacionales.Marisa Velasco - 2002 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 17 (2):317-331.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-07-24

Total views
66 ( #154,595 of 2,425,450 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #122,985 of 2,425,450 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes