Epistemic Entitlements and the Practice of Computer Simulation
What does it mean to trust the results of a computer simulation? This paper argues that trust in simulations should be grounded in empirical evidence, good engineering practice, and established theoretical principles. Without these constraints, computer simulation risks becoming little more than speculation. We argue against two prominent positions in the epistemology of computer simulation and defend a conservative view that emphasizes the difference between the norms governing scientific investigation and those governing ordinary epistemic practices.
KeywordsComputer simulation Trust Epistemology Entitlements Models
This paper has benefited greatly from the work of two referees for this journal. We sincerely thank both of them for their detailed criticisms and thoughtful questions. We are grateful also to Samuel Arbesman, Jack Horner, Paul Humphreys, and Andreas Kaminski for discussions that contributed to the development of this paper. This work is supported by The National Security Agency through the Science of Security initiative contract #H98230-18-D-0009.
- Adler, J. (2015). Epistemological problems of testimony. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2015 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/testimony-episprob/. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
- Audi, R. (1997). The place of testimony in the fabric of knowledge and justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34(4), 405–422.Google Scholar
- Boschetti, F., Fulton, E., Bradbury, R., & Symons, J. (2012). What is a model, why people don’t trust them and why they should. In M. R. Raupach (Ed.), Negotiating our future: Living scenarios for Australia to 2050 (pp. 107–118). Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
- Davies, M. (2004) II—Martin Davies: Epistemic entitlement, warrant transmission and easy knowledge. In Aristotelian Society supplementary volume (Vol. 78(1)). Oxford: The Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Horner, J, & Symons, J. (forthcoming). Understanding error rates in software engineering: Conceptual, empirical, and experimental approaches.Google Scholar
- Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., et al. (2014). The parable of Google Flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 434, 343.Google Scholar
- McGlynn, A. (2014). On Epistemic Alchemy. In D. Dodd, & E. Zardini (Eds.), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification. (pp. 173–189), OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
- Newman, J. (2015). Epistemic opacity, confirmation holism and technical debt: Computer simulation in the light of empirical software engineering. In International conference on history and philosophy of computing (pp. 256–272). Springer.Google Scholar
- Norton, S., & Suppe, F. (2001). Why atmospheric modeling is good science (pp. 67–105). Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance.Google Scholar
- Quine, W. V. (1973). The roots of reference. La Salle, Ill: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Resch, M. M., Kaminski, A., & Gehring, P. (Eds.). (2017). The science and art of simulation I: Exploring-understanding-knowing. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Roush, S. (2015). The epistemic superiority of experiment to simulation. Synthese, 169, 1–24.Google Scholar
- Steadman, I. (2013). Big data and the death of the theorist. Wired Online, 25, 2013.Google Scholar
- Symons, J., & Horner, J. (2017). On some limits to model-based proof of software correctness. In T. Powers (Ed.), Philosophy and computing: Essays in epistemology, philosophy of mind, logic, and ethics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wright, C., & Davies M. (2004) On epistemic entitlement. In Proceedings of the aristotelian society, supplementary volumes (Vol. 78, pp. 167–245). www.jstor.org/stable/4106950. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
- Winsberg, E. (2015). Computer simulations in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2015 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/simulations-science/. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.