In the early 1980s, Robert Axelrod published several articles on The Evolution of Cooperation, discussing and interpreting the results of his well-known computer tournaments and of a series of subsequent simulations. Both the tournaments and simulations were conducted in order to find a suitable, evolutionary stable strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, which is generally considered an appropriate model of a
certain type of social dilemma that arises when "the pursuit of self-interest by each leads to a poor outcome for all."
The results of the tournaments and simulations led to a generalized theory of the evolution of cooperation, which claims to provide an explanation for various historical, social and biological phenomena. Axelrod`s work contributed extensively to popularizing computer simulation as a scientific method in the social sciences. Besides the fact that his approach had an unquestionably high impact on succeeding research and ushered in the "simulation era" in the social sciences, the use Axelrod made of computer simulations raises questions about their methodological and epistemological
status: If, as Axelrod states in his paper "Advancing the Art of
Simulation in the Social Sciences", simulation can serve the purposes of prediction, proof and even scientific discovery, what need is there for conducting experiments any longer? Can't we simulate science?
Admittedly, this suggestion sounds somewhat exaggerated, but why exactly do most of us share the intuition that there are fundamental differences persisting between simulations and experiments? What are the characteristic features distinguishing them? Do computer simulations in general - and
Axelrod's tournaments in particular - resemble experiments insofar as their
potential to provide us with surprising results that permit further theorizing
is concerned? Or are they nothing else than mere "number-crunching techniques", using brute-force computational means in
order to generate data from theoretical knowledge and assumptions already built into the underlying model?
The question where to draw the conceptual line between simulation and
experiment has turned out to be of great interest to philosophy of science,
not least since the categorization might be relevant to the way the results
are assessed and used. The objective of this paper is to elaborate on the
distinctive characteristics of simulations in contrast to experiments.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- Introduction
- Axelrod's computer tournament ― a brief overview of its setup, results and further conclusions
- Simulating science? Simulations versus experiments
- Materiality
- External validity and its justification
- Interim findings
- Are Axelrod's conclusions externally valid?
- Conclusion
- A Prisoner's dilemma matrix
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte
This paper aims to explore the distinctive characteristics of computer simulations in contrast to experiments, particularly in the context of social sciences. It examines whether simulations can be classified as a form of theorizing, experimenting, or a "third way of doing science." The paper analyzes Robert Axelrod's work on the evolution of cooperation, a paradigmatic simulation-based approach, to understand the epistemological and methodological status of simulations.
- The nature of computer simulations in relation to experiments
- The role of materiality and external validity in simulations
- The epistemic power and external validity of simulations
- The application of simulations in social sciences, particularly in the context of evolutionary game theory
- The question of whether simulations can provide surprising results that lead to further theorizing
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel
The introduction sets the stage by discussing Robert Axelrod's work on The Evolution of Cooperation, which popularized computer simulation as a scientific method in the social sciences. The paper explores the question of whether simulations can be considered a form of experimenting or a distinct "third way of doing science."
Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of Axelrod's computer tournament, outlining its setup, results, and conclusions. The tournament involved various strategies competing in a repeated prisoner's dilemma scenario, with TIT FOR TAT emerging as the winning strategy. Axelrod's analysis of the tournament results led to the development of a theory of cooperation based on reciprocity.
Chapter 3 delves into the distinction between simulations and experiments, examining concepts like materiality and external validity. It explores different proposals for categorizing simulations, considering their potential to provide surprising results and their role in scientific discovery.
Chapter 4 focuses on the external validity of Axelrod's conclusions, questioning whether the results of his tournaments can be generalized to real-world scenarios. It examines the reliability of the "surprising" results and the empirical confirmation of the theory of the evolution of cooperation.
Schlüsselwörter
The keywords and focus themes of the text include computer simulation, experiments, social sciences, evolutionary game theory, the evolution of cooperation, materiality, external validity, epistemic power, and the prisoner's dilemma.
- Citar trabajo
- Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Inga Bones (Autor), 2010, Simulating Science?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/148996
-
-
-
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X.