I'm revising a manuscript on the relationship between computer simulations,
theories and empirical tests. Part of the closing section reviews (and
defeats) a number of common stereotypes and distortions, e.g.:
Simulation research ...
... is crass empiricism
... is inelegant
... is easier to conduct than "real" research
... can generate any results that you want
... oversimplifies
I've found that these and other such myths and distortions ring true with
those of us who've written simulations. Unfortunately, however, reviewers
of the first draft regarded some of them as "straw men," despite the fact
that I (and others) have seen them offered as criticisms against the use of
simulation. The problem is that my only evidence for the propogation of
these criticisms is anecdotal. It comes from journal reviews, conferences,
word-of-mouth, and so on.
My question for the group is this: Are you aware of any *published*
critiques of the use of computer simulations, especially by social
scientists?
Also, if there are other such general, ill-informed criticisms that you'd
like to share, please do!
Thanks in advance,
Barry Markovsky
|