 |
 |
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that one can work with a much more modest philosophy of science about theorizing in the social sciences, such as specifying heuristics (Herbert Simon). In the research process one can then work with “theoretically informed expectations.” Testing these in observational terms sets a loop of learning in motion that can be argued discursively. In the case of simulations the observational terms are possible realizations. One learns insofar as these are different from the expectations. I don’t mean the above as an argument against theorizing, but the two processes are not continuously and necessarily coupled. It can be a division of labour. Best, Loet From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus G. Troitzsch Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [SIMSOC] AW: [SIMSOC] ABM To Test Theory ... 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