Dear all,

I would also like to draw your attention to the theory reconstruction approach of the “non-statement view” of Sneed, Balzer, Moulines and others. In several papers I (and, of course, others, too) have shown that building object-oriented and agent-based simulation models are in line with this very formal approach to the analysis and reconstruction of theories (see e.g.  http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31140-6_6).

Best wishes

Klaus

Von: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Sallach, David L.
Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Januar 2014 20:09
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [SIMSOC] ABM To Test Theory ...

Dear colleagues,

As many of you are aware, in addition to MSA, MDE, Monte Carlo and other familiar methods, there is  a cluster of techniques based on emerging mathematical theories .  A short list of the latter would include topos & higher-order categories, various versions of type theory (e.g., constructive, inductive, dependent, polymorphic & homotopic) and categorial grammars.  The power and expressiveness of these techniques have the potential to significantly extend the analytical horizons of the computational social sciences and are, thus, relevant to the present discussion. 

Regards,

David

David L. Sallach, Senior Fellow 

Computation Institute 

University of Chicago 

Searle Laboratory, Suite 103 

5735 So. Ellis Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60637 

---

From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Klaus Jaffe [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] ABM To Test Theory ...

To continue with this very interesting communal analysis I will part from the assumption that simulations are a kind of mathematics and that math is the language to ask nature our questions (as Einstein often insisted in his lectures)

1- In this respect, ABM are on the edge of complexity. They can be made so complex as to be beyond our understanding and/or that they become unpredictable. Mathematics strives for the simplest representation of reality and ABM sometimes are far from simple. Thus, many situations could be better understood with simpler mathematical tools, but many other situations are not amenable to a simpler analysis.

2- I have the intuitive understanding that ABM are equivalent to multidimensional cellular automata (MCA) and to matrices of complex partial equations (MDE). The choice of method depends on the previous training of the user. Thus ABM are preferred by sociologists and biologists, MCA is the preferred tool of many physicist as they can present their model analytically, and MDE is very mathematical in spirit as it is less interested in numerical solution and more in elegant abstraction. I thing these 3 methods and may be more, are equivalent in its power to analyze complex phenomena and should provide similar answers to our questions to nature. But I have no formal proof of that

3- Science is a method and methods are there to solve problems. Thus I think we should focus more on the kinds of problems we want to solve and less on the methods used for it. The optimal approach is to use a diversity of methods to advance our knowledge, Concilience (see E.O. Wilson) between the different science could be increased with this approach and the bridge between the social sciences and other natural science reinforced.

Klaus Jaffe Carbonell                                               
http://atta.labb.usb.ve/Klaus/klaus.htm

El 1/4/2014 9:13 AM, Wander Jager escribió:

Dear all

Great and relevant question Edmund, thanks for sharing this.

In my perception as a social scientist (originating from social psychology) I see a progress in our understanding of how individual behaviour (and its underlying drivers) gives rise to group dynamics and vice-versa. ABM helps social science in structuring ideas on the relation between cognition, social interaction and networks. As such it contributes to creating a more full picture of how our species behaves and interacts, both among each other as with our habitat.


For me an important value of ABM resides in its capacity to formally link small-level theories (processes), thus working towards a more integrated but far from complete "manual" of some of our species behaviour. Rather than contributing to our understanding of our own future, such a “manual” may contribute to understanding how we can manage ourselves as a society (shaping the future rather than predicting it).

I seem to observe that several problems and challenges for society are related to turbulences in behaviour. Understanding how we can deal with these seems a legitimate challenge for the social sciences.

Wishing you all a healthy and inspirational 2014

Wander


On 2-1-2014 16:52, Edmund Chattoe-Brown wrote:

Dear All,

What would you say are the best/most thought provoking/most persuasive
attempts to test or build on existing theory using ABM? By this I mean
not just _any_ ABM (which could be argued in a general sense to build
theory) but one that has some clear and deliberate relationship with a
reasonably well known piece of published theory (like labelling theory,
Marxism, the Hobbesian state of nature, Friedman's claim that profit
making firms will drive out non profit making firms, the theory of
Habermasian communicative action and so on.)

I'll summarise back to the list.

Happy 2014,

Edmund