If I understand the issues between Kathleen and Rosaria, the main
question is whether the simulation model as implemented is a theory or
whether the implementation is a tool of theory building. I think I also
understand how this difference reflects their respective research
agenda. What I haven't understood is why it matters whether we say that
the implementation is a theory or a theory-building tool.
I would be grateful for enlightenment on this.
regards,
scott
Kathleen Carley wrote:
>
>
> Rosaria Conte wrote:
>
>> The alternative point of view has been put forward out of the AI
>> and DAI tradition.
>> The argument there is that the simulation is the theory. If one
>> believes the Turing test, or the social analog, The Social Turing
>> test then the fundamental mechanisms will be discovered through
>> the development of a valid computational model.
>>
>>
>> right: as I said, computer modelling is a fundamental tool for theory
>> building. But still, the theory is not (what is generated by) the
>> program! This is quite clear to AI-people, often involved in logic as
>> well as cmputational modelling. The agent systems, which is one of
>> the most promising AI subfields, is based upon the interplay among
>> three different components, the theory, the computational
>> architecture of the system, and formal language to describe it.
>
> The issue here is not "what is generate by the program" but "the
> program itself"
> Again, for many AI people and logicians, current logical formalisms
> are incapable of representing core ideas in some agent models - such
> as knowing not requiring infinite regress. For these models - new
> "logics" are needed. Until then, the program itself is the logic and
> is the theory. The results generated by the simulation are the
> hypotheses or predictions.
>
>>
>>
>> In addition, no verbal theory completely specifies the mechanism
>> ley alone the dynamic unfolding process, particularly for complex
>> adaptive systems. The simulation is needed to uncover and
>> describe these.
>>
>>
>> since it generates them, it is needed to uncover or observe them. But
>> it cannot iteslf /describe/ them explicitly. The simulation allows
>> you to observe the process that ought then to be explicitly described.
>
> Here I would say that the simulation results are used to uncover or
> observe the processes - but the simulation model is a formal
> description of the process. The language in the model is just a
> distinct symbol system for explicit;y formulatingof the theory.
>
> I would suggest that this is a philosphy of science question
> involving, among other issues, as to what are the features that make a
> symbol system adeqaute for formulating theory.
>
>
>
|