Abstract
Can computer simulation results be evidence for hypotheses about real-world systems and phenomena? If so, what sort of evidence? Can we gain genuinely new knowledge of the world via simulation? I argue that evidence from computer simulation is aptly characterized as higher-order evidence: it is evidence that other evidence regarding a hypothesis about the world has been collected. Insofar as particular epistemic agents do not have this other evidence, it is possible that they will gain genuinely new knowledge of the world via simulation. I illustrate with examples inspired by uses of simulation in meteorology and astrophysics.
Highlights
Computer simulations are ubiquitous in science and engineering today
Philosophers of science, disagree about the extent to which computer simulation, as a methodological practice, really is like experimentation and observation, with similar epistemic powers. Those who emphasize the differences have argued that, while computer simulation can provide us with knowledge of the world in the way that argumentation does—by helping us to recognize the implications of our existing knowledge—it cannot provide us with knowledge that goes beyond this; observation and traditional experimentation, by contrast, are capable of doing so, because in these practices we “gather experience” (Beisbart 2012, p. 425)
While it is true that simulation models do not provide information about the world that goes beyond that which is already implicit in their assumptions, particular epistemic agents—including even scientists and engineers using simulation models—might still gain genuinely new knowledge of the world via simulation
Summary
Computer simulations are ubiquitous in science and engineering today. They frequently serve as replacements for traditional experimentation and observation. Barberousse et al 2009; Beisbart 2012, 2018; Giere 2009; Humphreys 2013; Lusk 2016; Morrison 2009; Parker 2009, 2017; Winsberg 2010) Those who emphasize the differences have argued that, while computer simulation can provide us with knowledge of the world in the way that argumentation does—by helping us to recognize the implications of our existing knowledge—it cannot provide us with knowledge that goes beyond this; observation and traditional experimentation, by contrast, are capable of doing so, because in these practices we “gather experience”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
