JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC Archives

SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC  2003

SIMSOC 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Theory and Simulation

From:

Scott Moss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Scott Moss <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:13:33 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (136 lines)

I guess the views of Penn, Tesfatsion and Markovsky (excerpted below)
expressed in the simulation and explanation (now theory) thread are
fairly typical and widespread.  They are consistent with conventional
approaches to social science.  Theory predominates over observation.  I
have been arguing (e.g. in my Presidential Address to ESSA) that if
social simulation with agents is to be anything other than another in
the long line of failed approaches to social science, it will be a
positive departure only because it facilitates the dominance of
observation over theory.

The great successful scientists -- Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton,
Darwin, Planck, Faraday, Einstein, Watson & Crick (maybe not quite in
the class of the others) -- built their conceptual structures and
generalisations around observation.  Theory always gave way to
evidence.  Newton and Darwin in particular kept their theories to
themselves for decades before being convinced that they were supported
by a sufficuently wide range of evidence.  Only when these theoretical
structures were well validated did they come into general use for
guiding new observation, identifying new problems and, to solve those
problems, developing new theoretical structures based on and validated
by new evidence.

Consider this tradition in relation to the following excerpts:


Alan Penn:

> can anyone think of excellent examples of
> simulation providing explanation in any field (let alone sociology).
> It seems to me that simulations (at their best) are built on top of
> pre-existing explanatory theory, they may act as tests of those
> theories, but in a true Popperian sense, can do little to confirm only
> perhaps help falsify them.



If you start from a social theory that does not itself specify agent
behaviour and interaction so that those specifications can be validated
by, for example, the individuals the agents represent, then the only
link with evidence is the predictions generated by the theory.  If there
are no correct predictions, then there is no link at all between theory
and the world we observe.  There has never in the history of Economics
and Management Science been a correct forecast of macroeconomic or
financial market turning points or turning points in retail market sales
(by brand or SKU).  I know less about sociology, but my reading of the
journals in that field suggests that no sociological theory offers
systematically well validated predictions, either.  Presumably, top-down
sociological theory does not offer well validated propositions about
individuals and their interactions.  Does anyone have any
counterexamples to these statements?

Leigh Tesfatsion (paper cited in her email):

   Thus, as implemented for this study, the labor market framework
comprises an
    equal number of work suppliers and employers. These work suppliers
and employers
    repeatedly participate in costly searches for worksite partners on
the basis of
   continually updated expected utility, engage in efficiency-wage
worksite interactions
   modelled as prisoner's dilemma games, and evolve their worksite
strategies over time
   on the basis of the earnings secured by these strategies in past
worksite interactions.

This excerpt from Leigh's paper is perhaps a case in point.  I would be
astonished if anyone could provide evidence that employers and employees
(== work suppliers, presumably) would claim to "participate in costly
searches for worksite partners on the basis of continually updated
expected utility."  Is there any independent evidence that prisoners'
dilemma games are good representations of "worksite interactions"?  This
is a pretty good example of starting from theory (which has been shown
to be invalid by experimental economists repeatedly over the past 50
years) in order to draw conclusions about the world we observe.  Why is
it better to restate the problem in terms of such a theory than to get
evidence about actual worksite behaviour and design agents to describe
that behaviour?


Barry Markovsky

>> I want to expand on Alan Penn's comments (below) because I think there
>> are some common misunderstandings and misuses of simulations in
>> sociology that we need to battle.
>>
>> Say you start with a typical discursive sociological theory, and you
>> want to write a simulation that is in some sense designed to reflect
>> the claims and explanatory mechanisms of that theory.
>

> By this view, every simulation provides an explanation: Their
> statements and functional relationships constitute the explanations
> for the
> patterns of output they generate. Certainly Sugarscape accomplishes
> this (as Mike points out below), and so do countless others. A reader may
> feel that such an explanation flawed or insufficient, but then the
> burden is on the reader either to show how the simulation fails to
> account for the phenomenon it intended to explain, or to provide an
> alternative theory or simulation that provides a superior account.


I don't understand why the burden is on the reader "either to show how
the simulation fails to account for the phenomenon it intended to
explain, or to provide an alternative theory or simulation."  An
alternative scientific approach that has worked well in the physical and
biological sciences is to place the burden on the theorist/modeller to
demonstrate that the theory or model is descriptively accurate or, where
that demonstration cannot be made, that the theory/model is robust with
respect to the specifications that cannot be validated.

As Rosaria said, simulation and theory should not be confused.  The
virtue of agent based simulation is that the agents can be descriptors
of observed behaviour.  Where different observers of behaviour have
different descriptions of that behaviour, then those different
descriptions can be modelled using agents.  Personally, I find it easier
to do that in declarative languages, but there is no insuperable
difficult about doing it in Java or C/C++ (hence, RePast or Swarm).

This is what makes agent based social simulation different from the long
line of empirically failed social theories and modelling techniques such
as  utility theory and game theory.  It enables us to engage with
observation and evidence without the constraints of unvalidated theory.
If good social science and social theory can be produced, then the
experience of the natural sciences is that it will be produced on the
basis of good observation and evidence.  Agent based modelling enables
us to formalise such observations without spurious generalisation.  As
such, it might be a means of developing good social theory.  But I
wouldn't expect to see that theory any time soon.


Scott Moss
Professor of Social Simulation
Centre for Policy Modelling
Manchester

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager