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:

Barry Markovsky <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Barry Markovsky <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:50:31 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

Scott,

A theory embodies our best knowledge regarding the nature and workings
of a particular class of phenomena. A theory-building tool would serve a
theory, but not contain it. If I'm looking for knowledge about a given
topic, I'd rather study the theory than the tools used to build it.

The distinction also is important because it would affect the way we
treat simulations. If they are theories, then ultimately they must
conform with evidence. If they are only tools, then they need not.

As I wrote previously, I don't subscribe to the idea that, if the output
of a rigorous simulation conforms to hypotheses obtained by interpreting
a discursive theory ("theory" for short), then the simulation can be
said to test and corroborate the theory. The simulation may *feel* like
it is a tool contributing to building the theory, but unless there is
complete logical consistency between simulation and theory, any
"building" that one does to the discursive theory is arbitrary. Instead,
assuming that one has good definitions for the terms of the simulation,
I think that it makes more sense to think of the simulation as a more
rigorous version of the theory, perhaps inspired by the discursive
version, but nonetheless a theory in its own right. The programming
language and associated utilities are the "tools."

Barry Markovsky



> -----Original Message-----
> From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the
> social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Moss
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theory and Simulation
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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