Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:36:33.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments, Simulations, and Epistemic Privilege

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Emily C. Parke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments are commonly thought to have epistemic privilege over simulations. Two ideas underpin this belief: first, experiments generate greater inferential power than simulations, and second, simulations cannot surprise us the way experiments can. In this article I argue that neither of these claims is true of experiments versus simulations in general. We should give up the common practice of resting in-principle judgments about the epistemic value of cases of scientific inquiry on whether we classify those cases as experiments or simulations, per se. To the extent that either methodology puts researchers in a privileged epistemic position, this is context sensitive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 516 - 536
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

†

I am grateful to Mark Bedau, Mark Colyvan, Karen Detlefsen, Zoltan Domotor, Mary Morgan, Margaret Morrison, Daniel Singer, Kyle Stanford, two anonymous reviewers, and especially Brett Calcott, Paul Sniegowski, and Michael Weisberg for their valuable feedback on drafts of this article. Thanks also to audiences at conferences where I presented earlier versions of this work for helpful comments and discussion: the Australasian Association of Philosophy 2012, Philosophy of Biology at Dolphin Beach 6, Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation 3, the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology 2013, and a University of Pennsylvania Ecolunch Ecology and Evolution seminar. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant DGE-0822.

References

Barberousse, Anouk, Franceschelli, Sara, and Imbert, Cyrille. 2008. “Computer Simulations as Experiments.” Synthese 169 (3): 557–74.Google Scholar
Bataillon, Thomas, Joyce, Paul, and Sniegowski, Paul. 2013. “As It Happens: Current Directions in Experimental Evolution.” Biology Letters 9 (1): 20120945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castelvecchi, Davide. 2007. “Let There Be Aluminum-42: Experiment Creates Surprise Isotope.” Science News 172 (17): 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denning, Elizabeth J., and MacKerell, Alexander D. Jr. 2011. “Impact of Arsenic/Phosphorus Substitution on the Intrinsic Conformational Properties of the Phosphodiester Backbone of DNA Investigated Using Ab Initio Quantum Mechanical Calculations.” Journal of the American Chemical Society 133 (15): 5770–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elena, Santiago, Cooper, Vaughn S., and Lenski, Richard E.. 1996. “Punctuated Evolution Caused by Selection of Rare Beneficial Mutations.” Science 272 (5269): 1802–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Joshua M., and Axtell, Robert. 1996. Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Washington, DC: Brookings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1990. Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman, and Hartmann, Stephan. 2012. “Models in Science.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Masao, Kakinuma, Kenichi, and Kawaguchi, Ryuji. 2002. “Phylogenetic Analysis of Salmonella, Shigella, and Escherichia coli Strains on the Basis of the gyrB Gene Sequence.” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 40 (8): 2779–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garland, Theodore, and Rose, Michael R., eds. 2009. Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentile, Christopher F., Yu, Szi-Chieh, Serrano, Sebastian A., Gerrish, Philip J., and Sniegowski, Paul D.. 2011. “Competition between High- and Higher-Mutating Strains of Escherichia coli.” Biology Letters 7 (3): 422–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, Stephan J., and Eldredge, Niles. 1977. “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered.” Paleobiology 3 (2): 115–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Volker, and Railsback, Steven F.. 2013. Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2002. “Models, Simulations, and Experiments.” In Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values, ed. Magnani, Lorenzo and Nersessian, Nancy J., 59–74. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, Rom. 2003. “The Materiality of Instruments in a Metaphysics for Experiments.” In Radder 2003, 19–38.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 2004. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Thomas E., Wilke, Claus O., and Bull, James J.. 2012. “Interactions between Evolutionary Processes at High Mutation Rates.” Evolution 66 (7): 2303–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenhard, Johannes. 2006. “Surprised by a Nanowire: Simulation, Control, and Understanding.” Philosophy of Science 73 (5): 605–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenhard, Johannes 2007. “Computer Simulation: The Cooperation between Experimenting and Modeling.” Philosophy of Science 74 (2): 176–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenski, Richard E. 2014. The E. coli Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project Site. Michigan State University. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli.Google Scholar
Lenski, Richard E., Rose, Michael R., Simpson, Suzanne C., and Tadler, Scott C.. 1991. “Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli.” Pt. 1, “Adaptation and Divergence during 2,000 Generations.” American Naturalist 138 (6): 1315–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenski, Richard E., and Travisano, Michael. 1994. “Dynamics of Adaptation and Diversification: A 10,000-Generation Experiment with Bacterial Populations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91 (15): 6808–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Arnon, and Currie, Adrian. 2014. “Model Organisms Aren’t (Theoretical) Models.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
McClintock, Barbara. 1951. “Chromosome Organization and Genic Expression.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 16:13–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, Mary S. 2005. “Experiments versus Models: New Phenomena, Inference and Surprise.” Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2): 317–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. 2009. “Models, Measurement and Computer Simulation: The Changing Face of Experimentation.” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofria, Charles, and Wilke, Claus O.. 2004. “Avida: A Software Platform for Research in Computational Evolutionary Biology.” Artificial Life 10 (2): 191–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, Wendy S. 2009. “Does Matter Really Matter? Computer Simulations, Experiments, and Materiality.” Synthese 169 (3): 483–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, Steven L. 2004. “Simulation as Experiment: A Philosophical Reassessment for Biological Modeling.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (10): 530–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peschard, Isabelle. 2012. “Is Simulation an Epistemic Substitute for Experimentation?” In Simulations and Networks, ed. Vaienti, S.. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Radder, Hans, ed. 2003. The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railsback, Steven F., and Grimm, Volker. 2011. Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sniegowski, Paul D., Gerrish, Philip J., and Lenski, Richard E.. 1997. “Evolution of High Mutation Rates in Experimental Populations of E. coli.” Nature 387 (6634): 703–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugden, Robert. 2000. “Credible Worlds: The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travisano, Michael, Vasi, Farida, and Lenski, Richard E.. 1995. “Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli.” Pt. 3, “Variation among Replicate Populations in Correlated Responses to Novel Environments.” Evolution 49 (1): 189–200.Google Scholar
Vasi, Farida, Travisano, Michael, and Lenski, Richard E.. 1994. “Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli.” Pt. 2, “Changes in Life-History Traits during Adaptation to a Seasonal Environment.” American Naturalist 144 (3): 432–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Marcel. 2004. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2009. “A Tale of Two Methods.” Synthese 169 (3): 575–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, Eric 2010. Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar