Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:51:27.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Robust Simulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

As scientists begin to study increasingly complex questions, many have turned to computer simulation to assist in their inquiry. This methodology has been challenged by both analytic modelers and experimentalists. A primary objection of analytic modelers is that simulations are simply too complicated to perform model verification. From the experimentalist perspective it is that there is no means to demonstrate the reality of simulation. The aim of this paper is to consider objections from both of these perspectives, and to argue that a proper understanding and application of robustness analysis is able to resolve them.

Type
Philosophy of Science: Models
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Cristina Bicchieri, Michelle Foa, Paul Humphreys and Michael Weisberg for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Hacking, I. (1985), “Do We See through a Microscope?”, in Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 132152.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (2004), Extending Ourselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2001), “Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy”, Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy 110:151197.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. (2006), “Forty Years of ‘The Strategy’: Levins on Model Building and Idealization”, Forty Years of ‘The Strategy’: Levins on Model Building and Idealization 21:623645.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination”, in Brewer, M. B. and Collins, B. E. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 124163.Google Scholar