Understanding Epistemological Debates in the Humanities and Social Sciences Can Aid in Model Development: Modeling Interpretive and Explanatory Theories

  • Justin E. LaneEmail author
Part of the New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion book series (NASR, volume 7)


When embarking on a new model, a programmer working with scholars in the humanities is often tasked with helping a likely non-programmer(s) with critical decisions concerning how to set about modeling the theory at hand. I argue that, in these early stages of development, the goals of the researcher and epistemological considerations are of paramount importance to the development of valid computational models. In order to start this discussion with a real-world example, this chapter outlines a mistake, made by myself, in a critical stage early on in the modelling process. Specifically, using early discussions with the theorist, I suggested modeling the theory as an agent-based model. After some critical reflection after substantial development, I came to the conclusion that the theory is better modelled as a system dynamics model. In the chapter, I reflect on what drove me to make the original mistake, what caused me to realize the error, and what the result of correcting the error was. I share this mistake in this chapter for two reasons: (1) so that others in similar situations might not fall into the same trappings and (2) to open up a dialogue concerning epistemology of the social sciences and humanities insofar as it relates to modelling and simulation. My general conclusion is that the thinking received by the social scientist and humanities scholar should be fully flushed out at early stages of model development, as their strength is attention to theoretical nuance. This is of utmost importance to model development, which if unaddressed should still cause issues later during model validation and verification.


Interpretation Explanation Interdisciplinary collaboration Correspondence Culture Epistemology Modeling & simulation Agent-based modeling System dynamics modeling Social systems 


  1. Adami, C., N. Pasmanter, and A. Hintze. 2017. Thermodynamics of evolutionary games. ArXiv: 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. Balaban, M., P. Hester, and S.Y. Diallo. 2014. Towards a theory of multi-method M&S approach: Part 1. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter simulation conference, ed. A. Tolk, S.Y. Diallo, L. Ryzhov, L. Yilmaz, S. Buckley, and J.A. Miller, 1652–1663. Savannah: IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. 2009. Looking down, around, and up: Mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology 22 (5): 543–564. Scholar
  4. Blondel, V.D., J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 10008 (10): 6. Scholar
  5. Bunge, M. 1998. Social science under debate: A philosophical perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2011. Knowledge: Genuine and Bogus. Science and Education 20 (5–6): 411–438. Scholar
  7. Epstein, J.M. 1999. Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity 4 (5): 41–60.<41::AID-CPLX9> 3.3.CO;2-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2006. Agent-based computational models and generative social science. In Generative social science, ed. J.M. Epstein, 1–43. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.<41::AID-CPLX9>3.0.CO;2-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, N. 2008. The idea of agent-based modeling. In Agent-based models, 2–21. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimm, V., U. Berger, D.L. DeAngelis, J.G. Polhill, J. Giske, and S.F. Railsback. 2010. The ODD protocol: A review and first update. Ecological Modelling 221 (23): 2760–2768. Scholar
  11. Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes: Volume 1: Philosophical papers, ed. J. Worall and G. Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lane, J.E. 2013. Method, theory, and multi-agent artificial intelligence: Creating computer models of complex social interaction. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion 1 (2): 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2017. Can we predict religious extremism? Religion. Brain & Behavior 7 (4): 299–304. Scholar
  14. ———. 2018a. Bridging qualitative and quantitative approaches to religion, 26–32. Religion, Brain & Behavior. Scholar
  15. ———. 2018b. The emergence of social schemas and lossy conceptual information networks: How information transmission can lead to the apparent “emergence” of culture. In Emergent behavior in complex systems engineering: A modeling and simulation approach, ed. S. Mittal, S.Y. Diallo, and A. Tolk, 1st ed., 329–256. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Lior, Y. 2015. Kabbalah and neo-confucianism: A comparitive morphology of medieval moments. Boston University.Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, C.J. 2015. A taxonomy for classifying terminologies that describe simulations with multiple models. In Proceedings of the 2015 Winter simulation conference, ed. L. Yilmaz, W.K.V. Chan, I. Moon, M.K. Roeder, C. Macal, M.D. Rossetti, et al., 1621–1632. Huntington Beach: IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch, C., J.J. Padilla, S.Y. Diallo, J. Sokolowski, and C. Banks. 2014. A multi-paradigm modeling framework for modeling and simulating problem situations. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter simulation conference, ed. A. Tolk, S.Y. Diallo, L. Ryzhov, L. Yilmaz, S. Buckley, and J.A. Miller, 1688–1699. Savannah: IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robinson, S., R. Brooks, K. Kotiadis, and D.-J. van der Zee, eds. 2011. Conceptual modeling for discrete-event simulation. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  20. Sokal, A.D. 2010. Beyond the Hoax: Science, philosophy and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sperber, D. 1985. Anthropology and psychology: Towards and epidemiology of representations. Man 20 (1): 73–89. Retrieved from Scholar
  22. Sterman, J.D. 2000. Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. The AnyLogic Company. 2017. AnyLogic 8.2.3. St. Petersburg: The AnyLogic Company. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Tolk, A., S.Y. Diallo, J.J. Padilla, and H. Herencia-Zapana. 2013. Reference modelling in support of M&S-foundations and applications. Journal of Simulation 7 (2): 69–82. Scholar
  25. Vangheluwe, H., J. De Lara, and P.J. Mosterman. 2000. An introduction to multiparadigm modelling and simulation. Ais2002: 9–20. Retrieved from
  26. Viana, J., S.C. Brailsford, V. Harindra, and P.R. Harper. 2014. Combining discrete-event simulation and system dynamics in a healthcare setting: A composite model for Chlamydia infection. European Journal of Operational Research 237 (1): 196–206. Scholar
  27. Wilensky, U. 2005. NetLogo Wolf Sheep predation (Docked Hybrid) model. Evanston: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  28. Wilensky, U., and K. Reisman. 2006. Thinking like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories – An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction 24 (2): 171–209. Scholar
  29. Xygalatas, D. 2012. The Burning Saints: Cognition and culture in the fire-walking rituals of the Anastenaria. Bristol: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Mind and CultureBostonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Modeling Social SystemsKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations