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:

Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:25:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (107 lines)

Loet,

I'm not sure whether it's my ignorance or your word-choices and
metaphors, but I seem unable to understand key portions of your reply.
The economics example doesn't help me because I don't know enough about
that field. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Barry

>>> Loet Leydesdorff <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/03 04:38AM >>>



Dear Barry and colleagues,

{...]
> I think you've lost me from here on. Maybe it's your
> distinction between "formal theory" and "substantive theory"
> -- as though formalizing necessarily eliminates "substance"?
> If that's what you mean, I'd disagree. I've heard it said
> that formalizing squeezes all of the substance out of a
> theory. To me, formalization means using a formal language
> (with clearly-defined terms) and formal logic (with rules for
> deriving new statements), making the *substance* of the
> theory as clear and parsimonious as possible.
>

The formalization of the substantive theory, in my opinion, is still
part of the substantive theory. The integration of the formal result
in
the program requires a reflexive turn (of 90 degrees) which abstracts
from the substantive variation explained by the first-order theory.
The
simulation results can be intuited as being directly relevant for the
substantive system(s) under study, but this substantive appreciation
can
be deconstructed as making a turn back.

Perhaps, a network metaphor is helpful. The first-order theories can
be
considered as processors at the nodes that run their own routines. The
program provides a network of links among them. As the latter produces
a
result (on the basis of a specific representation of the former), the
former may have to update.

For example, neo-classical economists tend to study equilibrating
markets. Evolutionary economists are interested how markets are upset
by
innovations (Schumpeter). The innovations take place along the time
axis
(change and stabilization), while the markets operate at each moment
in
time (variation and selection). The two theories thus take different
(nearly incommensurable) perspectives. Proponents of these two
theories
therefore tend to disagree.

In the simulation, we can recombine the formalizations, for example,
by
considering interaction terms between market mechanims and
technological
evolution in terms of technological trajectories and regimes. The two
competing (first-order) theories will try to annex these results as
relevant explanations because both of them wishes to be the one
comprehensive theory. However, we are able to recognize their
perspectives as partial from the algorithmic perspective. The two
first-order perspectives can be considered as attempts to stabilize a
geometrical narrative about the more complex system under study. In
other words, we gain a degree of freedom for the explanation in the
combination of the first-order (node) and the second-order (link)
perspective.

The two perspectives do not have to be recombined because both are
legitimate programmes in themselves. The recombination, however, may
require the development of another discourse for the translation (at
45
degrees between them). This discourse then serves the stabilization of
the mutual shaping between the first-order discourse and the
second-order discourse into a coevolution. In the above example of
neo-classical and evolutionary economics, for example, the discourse
of
self-organization  may serve this purpose (Paul Krugman, The
Self-Organizing Economy, 1996). The various routines can then be
considered as subroutines that develop competitively and disturb one
another.

With kind regards,


Loet


  _____

Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/


 <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm> The Challenge of
Scientometrics ;  <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm> The
Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society

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