Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 383–402 | Cite as

The hermeneutics of ecological simulation

  • Steven L. Peck
Article

Abstract

Computer simulation has become important in ecological modeling, but there have been few assessments on how complex simulation models differ from more traditional analytic models. In Part I of this paper, I review the challenges faced in complex ecological modeling and how models have been used to gain theoretical purchase for understanding natural systems. I compare the use of traditional analytic simulation models and point how that the two methods require different kinds of practical engagement. I examine a case study of three models from the insect resistance literature in transgenic crops to illustrate and explore differences in analytic and computer simulation models. I argue that analyzing simulation models has been often inappropriately managed with expectations derived from handling analytic models. In Part II, I look at simulation as a hermeneutic practice. I argue that simulation models are a practice or techné. I the explore five aspects of philosophical hermeneutics that may be useful in complex ecological simulation: (1) an openness to multiple perspectives allowing multiple levels of scientific pluralism, (2) the hermeneutic circle, a back and forth in active communication among both modelers and ecologists; (3) the recognition of human factors and the nature of human practices as such, including recognizing the role of judgments and choices in the modeling enterprise; (4) the importance of play in modeling; (5) the non-closed nature of hermeneutic engagement, continued dialogue, and recognizing the situatedness, incompleteness, and tentative nature of simulation models.

Keywords

Mathematical modeling Ecological modeling Computer simulation Hermeneutics Scientific pluralism Modeling theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Jim Faulkner, David Grandy, Steven Hawks, Wendy Parker, Anya Plutynski, and an anonymous reviewer for invaluable critiques of this paper. This was funded in part by EPA-ARS Interagency Agreement 60-3625-4-0574, and ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement 58-3625-4-100.

References

  1. Allen TFH, Tainter JA, Pires JC, Hoekstra TW (2001) Dragnet ecology—“Just the Facts, Ma’am”: the privilege of science in a postmodern world. BioScience 51:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alstad DN, Andow DA (1995) Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants. Science 268:1894–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper GJ (2003) The science of the struggle for existence: on the foundations of ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Crease RP (1993) The play of nature: experimentation and performance. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Davey N (2006) Unquiet understanding: Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  7. De Roos AM, Persson L (2005) Unstructured population models: do population-level assumptions yield general theory? In: Cuddington K, Beisner B (eds) Ecological paradigms lost: routes of theory change. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, pp 31–62Google Scholar
  8. De Ventura B, Lemerle C, Michalodimitrakis K, Serrano L (2006) From in vivo to in Silico biology and back. Nature 443:527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gadamer H-G (1975) Truth and method. Continuum Publishing Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Galison P (1996) Computer simulations and the trading zone. In: Galison P, Stump DJ (eds) The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp 118–157Google Scholar
  11. Godfrey-Smith P (2006) The strategy of model-based science. Biol Philos 21:725–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Guala F (2002) Models, simulations, and experiments. In: Magnani L, Nersessian NJ (eds) Model-based reasoning: science, technology, values. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 59–74Google Scholar
  14. Hall CAS (1988) An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical models used in ecology and the data provided in their support. Ecol Model 43:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harré R (2002) Science as the work of a community. In: Babich BE (ed) Hermeneutic philosophy of science, Van Gogh’s Eyes, and God: essays in honor of Patrick A. Heelan, S. J. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphreys P (2004) Extending ourselves: computational science, empiricism, and the scientific method. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431Google Scholar
  18. Levins R (2006) Strategies of abstraction. Biol Philos 21:741–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li CC (1955) Population genetics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Odenbaugh J (2005) The “structure” of population ecology: philosophical reflections on unstructured and structured models. In: Cuddington K, Beisner B (eds) Ecological paradigms lost: routes of theory change. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, pp 63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Odenbaugh J (2006a) Book review: struggling with the science of ecology. Biol Philos 21:395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Odenbaugh J (2006b) The strategy of “the strategy of model building in population biology”. Biol Philos 21:607–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orzack SH (2005) Discussion: what, if anything, is “the strategy of model building in population biology” a comment on Levens (1966) and Odenbaugh (2003). Philos Sci 72:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parker WS (2006) Understanding pluralism in climate modeling. Found Sci 11:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peck SL (2004) Simulation as experiment: a philosophical reassessment for biological modeling. Trends Ecol Evol 19:530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peck SL, Gould F, Ellner SP (1999) Spread of resistance in spatially extended regions of transgenic cotton: implications for the management of Heliothis verescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ Entomol 92:1–16Google Scholar
  27. Peters RH (1991) A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Shrader-Frechette KS, McCoy ED (1993) Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Templeton AR (2007) Genetics and recent human evolution. Evolution 61:1507–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toulmin S (2002) The hermeneutics of the natural sciences. In: Babich BE (ed) Hermeneutic philosophy of science, Van Gogh’s Eyes, and God: essays in honor of Patrick A. Heelan. S. J. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 219–229Google Scholar
  31. Weisberg M (2006) Forty years of ‘the strategy’: Levins on model building and idealization. Biol Philos 21:623–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weisberg M (2007) Who is a modeler? Br J Philos Sci 58:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wimsatt WC (2000) Emergence as non-aggregativity and the biases of reductionism(s). Found Sci 5:269–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wimsatt WC (2007) False models as means to truer theories. Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, pp 94–132Google Scholar
  35. Winsberg E (1999) Sanctioning models: the epistemology of simulation. Sci Context 12:275–292Google Scholar
  36. Winsberg E (2001) Simulations, models, and theories: complex physical systems and their representations. Philos Sci 68:S442–S454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winsberg E (2003) Simulated experiments: methodology for a virtual world. Philos Sci 70:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations