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||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
How Digital Computer Simulations Explain Real-World Processes.Ulrich Krohs - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):277 – 292.
Deflationism and the Success Argument.By Nic Damnjanovic - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):53–67.
Statistical Relevance and Explanatory Classification.John L. King - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 30 (5):313 - 321.
Explanatory Relevance Across Disciplinary Boundaries: The Case of Neuroeconomics.Jaakko Kuorikoski & Petri Ylikoski - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):219–228.
Simulation and the Sense of Understanding.Jaakko Kuorikoski - 2011 - In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
The Explanatory Potential of Artificial Societies.Till Grüne-Yanoff - 2009 - Synthese 169 (3):539 - 555.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads573 ( #2,310 of 2,152,252 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #22,067 of 2,152,252 )
How can I increase my downloads?