The philosophy and epistemology of simulation: A review

Simulation and Gaming

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 20-50

  Grüne Yanoff, Till ^a   Weirich, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent based simulation; Analytic solution; Cellular automaton; Computation; Equation based simulation; Experiment; Explanation; Model; Monte Carlo simulation; Nash equilibrium; Partial explanation; Policy formation; Potential explanation; Prediction; Proof; Replicator dynamics; Representation; Robustness; Simulation; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 75749134496     PISSN: 10468781     EISSN: 1552826X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1046878109353470     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Axtell, R.L., Epstein, J.M., Dean, J.S., Gumerman, G.J., Swedlund, A.C., Harburger, J.,et al.(2002). Population growth and collapse in a multiagent model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 7275-7279.
2. Aydinonat, N.E. (2008). The invisible hand in economics: How economists explain unintended social consequences (INEM Advances in Economic Methodology). London: Routledge.
3. Bankes, S.C., Lempert, R.L., & Popper, S.W. (2001). Computer-assisted reasoning. Computing in Science and Engineering, 3, 71-77.
4. Bedau, M. (1997). Weak emergence. Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375-399.
5. Berlekamp, E.R., Conway, J.H., & Guy, R.K. (1982). Winning ways for your mathematical plays: Vol. 2. Games in particular. London: Academic Press.
6. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review, 97, 303-352.
7. Brouwers, L., Mäkilä, K., & Camitz, M. (2006). Spridning av smittkoppor-simuleringsexperiment (SMI-Rapport Nr 5: 2006 T). Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control Stockholm.
8. Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature's capacities and their measurement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cederman, L.-E. (2005). Computational models of social forms: Advancing generative process theory. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 864-893.
11. Coops, N.C., & Catling, P.C. (2002). Prediction of the spatial distribution and relative abundance of ground-dwelling mammals using remote sensing imagery and simulation models. Landscape Ecology, 17, 173-188.
12. Da Costa, N., & French, S. (2003). Science and partial truth: A unitary approach to models and scientific reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. D'Arms, J., Batterman, R., & Górny, K. (1998). Game theoretic explanations and the evolution of justice. Philosophy of Science, 65, 76-102.
14. Dean, J., Gumerman, G., Epstein, J., Axtell, R., Swedlund, A., Parker, M.,et al.(2000). Understanding Anasazi cultural change through agent-based modeling. In T. Kohler & G. Gumerman (Eds.), Dynamics in human and primate societies: Agent-based modeling of social and spatial processes (pp. 179-205). New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Dokic, J., & Proust, J. (Eds.). (2002). Simulation and knowledge of action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16. Dowling, D. (1999). Experimenting on theories. Science in Context, 12, 261-273.
17. Epstein, J., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom-up. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Epstein, J.M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41-57.
19. Eubank, S., Guclu, H., Kumar, V.S.A., Marathe, M., Srinivasan, A., Toroczcai, Z.,et al.(2004). Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature, 429, 180-184.
20. Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/models-science.
21. Frigg, R., & Reiss, J. (2009). The philosophy of simulation: Hot new issues or same old stew? Synthese, 169, 593-613.
22. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Giere, R. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(Suppl.), S742-S752.
24. Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K.G. (1999). Simulation for the social scientist. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
25. Goodman, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In N. Goodman (Ed.), Problems and projects (pp. 437-447). New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
26. Gramelsberger, G. (in press). Deepening the interlinking between modelling and generating evidence by simulation runs. Simulation & Gaming.
27. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009a). The explanatory potential of artificial societies. Synthese, 169, 539-555.
28. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009b). Learning from minimal economic models, Erkenntnis, 70, 81-99.
29. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (in press-a). Agent-based models as policy decision tools: The case of small-pox vaccination. Simulation & Gaming.
30. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (in press-b). Artificial worlds and simulation. In J. Zamora Bonilla & I. Jarvie (Eds.), Sage handbook of philosophy of social science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Guala, F. (2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Hales, T.C. (2005). A proof of the Kepler conjecture. Annals of Mathematics, 162, 1065-1185.
33. Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process: Simulations in the natural and social sciences. In R. Hegselmann, U. Mueller, & K. Troitzsch (Eds.), Modelling and simulation in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 77-100). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
34. Haug, E. (1981). Engineering safety analysis via destructive numerical experiments (EURO-MECH 12). Polish Academy of Sciences, Engineering Transactions, 29(1), 39-49.
35. Hausman, D.M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36. Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
37. Huberman, B., & Glance, N. (1993). Evolutionary games and computer simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 90, 7716-7718.
38. Huggins, E.M., & Schultz, E.A. (1973). The San Francisco bay and delta model. California Engineer, 51, 11-23.
39. Hughes, R.I.G. (1999). The Ising model, computer simulation, and universal physics. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 97-145). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. Humphreys, P. (1991). Computer simulations. In A. Fine, M. Forbes, & L. Wessels (Eds.), PSA 1990 (Vol. 2, pp. 497-506). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
41. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Humphreys, P. (2009). The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese, 169, 615-626.
43. Küppers, G., & Lenhard, J. (2005). Validation of simulation: Patterns in the social and natural sciences. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(4). Retrieved February 22, 2006, from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/3.html.
44. Lehtinen, A., & Kuorikoski, J. (2007). Computing the perfect model: Why do economists shun simulation? Philosophy of Science, 74, 304-329.
45. Lempert, R.J. (2002). New decision sciences for complex systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl. 3), 7309-7313.
46. Mäki, U. (1994). Isolation, idealization and truth in economics. In B. Hamminga & N. De Marchi (Eds.), Idealization-VI: Idealization in economics (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Vol. 38, pp. 7-68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
47. Marimon, R., McGrattan, E., & Sargent, T.J. (1990). Money as a medium of exchange in an economy with artificially intelligent agents. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 14, 329-373.
48. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Menger, C. (1982). On the origin of money. Economic Journal, 2, 239-255.
50. Mill, J.S. (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. (Toronto: University of Toronto press).
51. Morgan, M.S. (2003). Experiments without material intervention: Model experiments, virtual experiments and virtually experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 217-235). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
52. Morgan, M.S., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10-37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53. Parker, W. (2009). Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments and materiality. Synthese, 169, 483-496.
54. Reiss, J. (in press). A plea for simulations. Simulation & Gaming.
55. Rohrlich, F. (1991). Computer simulation in the physical sciences. Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 507-518.
56. Ruphy, S. (in press). Learning from a simulated universe: The limits of realistic modeling in astrophysics and cosmology. Simulation & Gaming.
57. Samuelson, L. (1997). Evolutionary games and equilibrium selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.
58. Sawyer, R.K. (2004). Social explanation and computational simulation. Philosophical Explorations, 7, 219-231.
59. Schelling, T. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.
60. Schuster, P., & Sigmund, K. (1983). Replicator dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 100, 533-538.
61. Schweber, S., & Waechter, M. (2000). Complex systems, modelling and simulation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31, 583-609.
62. Skyrms, B. (1990). The dynamics of rational deliberation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63. Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64. Simon, H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
65. Simpson, J. (in press). Identity crisis: Simulations and models. Simulation & Gaming.
66. Stöckler, M. (2000). On modelling and simulations as instruments for the study of complex systems. In M. Carrier (Ed.), Science at century's end: Philosophical questions on the progress and limits of science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
67. Sugden, R. (2000). Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 7, 1-31.
68. Suppes, P. (2002), Representation and invariance of scientific structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
69. Szpiro, G. (2003). Does the proof stack up? Nature, 424, 12-13.
70. Taylor, P., & Jonker, L. (1978). Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences, 40, 145-156.
71. Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model. Erkenntnis, 55, 393-415.
72. Tesfatsion, L. (2007). Agent-based computational economics: A constructive approach to economic theory. In L. Tesfatsion & K. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1-50). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
73. Thurston, W. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 161-177.
74. van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
75. Weirich, P. (2004). Realistic decision theory: Rules for nonideal agents in nonideal circumstances. New York: Oxford University Press.
76. Weirich, P. (2008). The explanatory power of models and simulations: A philosophical exploration. Simulation & Gaming. DOI:10.1177/1046878108319639.
77. Weisberg, M. (2006). Robustness analysis. Philosophy of Science, 73, 730-742.
78. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
79. Winsberg, E. (2001). Simulations, models, and theories: Complex physical systems and their representations. Philosophy of Science, 68(Suppl.):S442-S454.
80. Winsberg, E. (2003). Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science, 70, 105-125.
81. Winsberg, E. (2009). A tale of two methods. Synthese, 169, 575-592.