The Science and Art of Simulation I : Exploring - Understanding - Knowing

190 Pages·2017·2.564 MB·English

by  Michael M. Resch, Andreas Kaminski, Petra Gehring (eds.)

Michael M. Resch
Andreas Kaminski
Petra Gehring Editors
The Science and
Art of Simulation I
Exploring -
Understanding -
Knowing
111 333
The Science and Art of Simulation I
Michael M. Resch (cid:129) Andreas Kaminski (cid:129)
Petra Gehring
Editors
The Science and Art
of Simulation I
Exploring - Understanding - Knowing
Editors
MichaelM.Resch AndreasKaminski
HighPerformanceComputing HighPerformanceComputing
Center(HLRS) Center(HLRS)
UniversityofStuttgart UniversityofStuttgart
Stuttgart,Germany Stuttgart,Germany
PetraGehring
InstituteforPhilosophy
TechnicalUniversityofDarmstadt
Darmstadt,Germany
ISBN978-3-319-55761-8 ISBN978-3-319-55762-5 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-55762-5
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017937528
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinor for anyerrors oromissionsthat may havebeenmade. Thepublisher remainsneutralwith
regardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Cover illustration: FEM model by NCAC, Simulation and Visualization by Thomas Obst. HLRS,
StuttgartGermany
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MichaelM.Resch,AndreasKaminski,andPetraGehring
PartI TheArtofExploringComputerSimulations
DoingResearchonSimulationSciences?QuestioningMethodologies
andDisciplinarities. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. 9
PetraGehring
OntheMissingCoherentTheoryofSimulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
MichaelM.Resch
TheArtofStagingSimulations:Mise-en-sce`ne,SocialImpact,
andSimulationLiteracy...................................... 33
BrunoGransche
MythsofSimulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Bj€ornSchembera
PartII TheArtofUnderstandingComputerSimulations
UnderstandingSocialScienceSimulations:DistinguishingTwo
CategoriesofSimulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
NicoleJ.Saam
SevenProblemswithMassiveSimulationModelsforPolicy
Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
TillGrüne-Yanoff
BetweenKnowledgeandAction:ConceptualizingScientific
SimulationandPolicy-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
DirkScheer
v
vi Contents
PartIII TheArtofKnowingThroughComputerSimulations
OutlinesofaPragmaticTheoryofTruthandErrorinComputer
Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
ChristophHubigandAndreasKaminski
TheDemon’sFallacy:SimulationModelingandaNewStyle
ofReasoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 137
JohannesLenhard
AdvancingKnowledgeThroughComputerSimulations?ASocratic
Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
ClausBeisbart
VarietiesofSimulations:FromtheAnaloguetotheDigital. . . . . . . . . . 175
JuanM.Dura´n
Introduction
MichaelM.Resch,AndreasKaminski,andPetraGehring
Itisquiteraretowitnessaradicalchangeinscience—notjusttheadventofanew
topicoranewidea,andnotjustachangeinasinglefieldorscientificdiscipline,but
a transformation of the way in which science works in general.1 In this kind of
situation,itisdifficulttounderstandwhatisgoingon.Ourperceptionsarenotyet
accustomedthe novelty; no scholarlylanguage has been refined anddevelopedto
reflectonwhat’sgoingon.2
Whenfacedwithsuchchallenges,societiesandscienceoftenrespondinoneof
two ways: (1) The first strategy is to increase the contrast. This makes a virtue of
necessity.Familiarconceptsandlanguagegamesareusedtosurveythedifference
between“old”and“new,”andacomparisonbetweenthetraditionalandthenovel
is expected to provide information about the ongoing change (see Husserl 1939;
Luhmann 1988). The advantage of this strategy is that it does not require any
presuppositions about what is essentially new. We validate our hypotheses on a
familiarbaselineandwearefromtheoutsetpreparedtodeterminedifferencesstep
by step. This, however, comes with certain disadvantages. Our results will be a
1Itiseasytosay,followingKuhn,thatweareobservingaparadigmshift(Kuhn1970).Infact,itis
tooeasy,becausethescientificshiftnecessarilyincludesacorrespondingshiftinthephilosophyof
science. Kuhn’s approach establishes a different “paradigm” of observing and understanding
science.Thus,boththephilosophyofscienceanditssubjectareinmotion.SeealsoWinsberg’s
remarksontheircorrelation(Winsberg2010).
2Fleck(1981)describesthischallengeforscientistsindetail,butitappliestophilosophersand
historiansofscienceaswell.
M.M.Resch(*)(cid:129)A.Kaminski
HighPerformanceComputingCenterStuttgart(HLRS),UniversityofStuttgart,Nobelstr.19,
70569Stuttgart,Germany
e-mail:[email protected];[email protected]
P.Gehring
InstituteofPhilosophy,TUDarmstadt,Dolivostr.15,64293Darmstadt,Germany
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017 1
M.M.Reschetal.(eds.),TheScienceandArtofSimulationI,
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-55762-5_1
2 M.M.Reschetal.
measureofdistanceordifference,commonlyexpressedassimilarityordissimilar-
ity,buttheywillnotgiveusaprofoundunderstandingofthenewkindofpractice
itself.Comparisonsof“old”and“new”practicescanonlyserveasastartingpoint
to understand the new. (2) The second strategy is a risky one. It can be called
“experimental” in the broad sense of the term and it tends to turn science into
engineeringand/orintoart.Duetothelackofreliableknowledgeabouttheongoing
transformation,wetrytodevelopmodels.Scienceasartcreatesamerelypossible
basis for a new understanding. Novels, movies, and music map out strategies to
copewithradicaltransformation.
From our (and not only our) point of view, computer simulation is radically
changing science in general.3 The transformation affects not only hard sciences
such as physics, chemistry, and engineering, but also sociology, psychology,
political science, and even mathematics. Computer simulation changes (and will
increasinglychange) thewaypolitical decisions aremade,uncertainty is handled,
andthefutureisunderstood.Toolmetaphors,therefore,aremisleading.Computer
simulationisnotatalljustanewdevice,aninstrument,butratheramedium4—and
a dispositif, in which thinking, decision-making, and understanding itself are
shaped.
The two responses mentioned above can be witnessed in current debates on
simulationsciences.Alotofscientificliterature(ourspartiallyincluded)revolves
around the question of whether computer simulations are more similar to experi-
ments than they are to theory and argumentation, or vice versa.5 In other words,
familiarconceptsareusedtomeasurethedistancebetweenclassicalmethodologies
and new ones. This results in a certain lack of concepts specific to computer
simulation. Commonly, the adjective “simulation” must serve to identify the
objective: Instead of “models” or “experiments”, one speaks of “simulation
models” or “simulation experiments”. While this strategy ensures discursive con-
tinuity,italsodelineatestheframeofpossiblethoughts.Whenitcomestocomputer
simulations, the result is tangible: A narrowed epistemological approach domi-
nates.Thesecondstrategy,understandingcomputersimulationthroughthemedium
of art, is not without its weaknesses either. Narratives of machines that become
intelligentandhumanlike,orofLaplace’sdemon,whichcancalculateeverything,
areprevalent.6Byinappropriatelymythologizingcomputers,thesenarrativescom-
plicateourunderstanding.
How might such shortcomings be resolved? Bearing in mind that the strategic
optionsforrespondingtoongoingtransformationsarelimited,itmaybeusefulto
3Forjustafewexamples,seeWinsberg(2010),Humphreys(2004,2009),Lenhard(2015a,b),and
KüppersandLenhard(2006).
4Foramediastudiesperspective,seePias(2011).Foranapproachbasedonthephilosophyof
technology,seeHubig(2006,2007,2015).
5Fortwowell-developedstudies,seeGramelsberger(2008)andBeisbart(2012).
6Cf.themoviesTranscendence(2014)orLucy(2014).Foramoreexperimentalapproachcf.Black
Mirror(2011–2016).
Introduction 3
reconsider some of the preliminary decisions and to reorganize the collaborative
researchoncomputersimulationstepbystep.ThisistheguidingideaoftheScience
andArtofSimulationseries(SAS).Itsintentionistoenabletheoreticalworkonthe
basis of possible (and possibly appropriate) conceptual frameworks. Furthermore,
its aim is to open up perspectives for improved ‘hands-on’ research on computer
simulation.Tothatend,SASconnectsscienceandartinathreefoldmanner:
1. Thearts—understoodasthehumanities,socialsciences,andphilosophy—enter
into a more comprehensive exchange with practitioners of computer simula-
tions. In addition to epistemological perspectives, the SAS series addresses
normative,political,historical,andaestheticquestions.
2. Art—understood as a craft put into action by practitioners—is related to the
methods and procedures described in theory. For this reason, the tension
between the science and engineering of computer simulations, between episte-
mology and technology, as well as between theory and practice, takes center
stage. In addition to such an “accompanied research”, the SAS series offers
practitionersacollegialandoccasionallycriticalvoice.
3. Art—understood as skill or artistry to reflect and make decisions based on the
outcomeofcomputersimulations—isconsideredinsocialandpoliticalcontexts.
In addition to the science and practice of computer simulation, the SAS series
explores the possibilities of relating to computer simulations from a social or
politicalpointofview.
TheHigh-PerformanceComputingCenterinStuttgart(HLRS)istheidealhome
for the SAS enterprise. With around a hundred engineers, scientists, mathemati-
cians,andcomputerscientists,itisoneoftheglobalpioneersincomputersimula-
tion. The newly founded Department for Philosophy of Computer Simulations at
HLRS,consistingoffourPh.D.studentsandtwopostdoctoralresearchers,enables
interactionbetweendisciplineswhicharenormallyseparatedandoffersinsightinto
thepracticalsideofsimulationsstudiesandhigh-performancecomputing.Together
withthe DepartmentofPhilosophy atTUDarmstadt, whichcontributesitsexper-
tiseinthephilosophyofscience,technology,andengineering,wehavefoundedthe
complementary SASworkshopseries,which attractsaninterdisciplinarygroupof
scholars.Everyfall,computerscientists,engineers,historians,andsocialscientists
meet philosophers researching the science and art of simulation. In the spring, a
secondSASworkshopseries,runincollaborationwithNicoleC.Saam(University
Erlangen-Nuremberg),focusesonsociologicalissuesincomputersimulation.7
The first volume of the series addresses three topics at the interplay of the
scienceandartofsimulation:
7WeoweagreatdebtofgratitudetoMadeleineLaRueforherdiligentandbrilliantproofreading
andCharlineMedernachforhersuperbsupportinimplementingthestyleguide.
4 M.M.Reschetal.
1 How to Explore Computer Simulations?
Philosophy began devoting attention to computer simulations at a relatively early
stage.Sincethen,theunquestionedpointofviewhasbeenthatcomputersimulation
is a new scientific method; the philosophy of simulation is therefore part of the
philosophy of science. The first section of this volume discusses this implicit
unchallenged assumption by addressing, from different perspectives, the question
of how to explore (and how not to explore) research on computer simulations.
Scientists discuss what is still lacking or considered problematic, while philoso-
phersdraftnewdirectionsforresearch.Theyexploretheartofexploringcomputer
simulations.
2 How to Understand the Results of Computer
Simulations?
The results of computer simulations are integrated into both political and social
decisions. It is implicitly assumed that the more detailed, and consequently more
realistic, a computer simulation is, the more useful it will be in decision-making.
Thisideaisbynomeansjustified.Differenttypesofcomputersimulationsmustbe
differentiated, which in turn requires the specific skill of understanding computer
simulationresults.Thearticlesinthissectionexaminethecapabilitiesandlimitsof
simulationresultsinpoliticalandsocialcontexts,exploringtheartofunderstanding
computersimulationresults.
3 How to Gain Knowledge Through Computer
Simulations?
Theadventofcomputersimulationinscientificpracticestodaychallengestheorder
ofscience.Whatkindofknowledgeisgainedthroughcomputersimulationsisthe
keyquestionofthissection.Computersimulationsareusuallycomparedtoexper-
iments or to arguments. The transformation of our traditional scientific notions
mightbemorechallengingthanexpected.Ideasareputforwardinthethirdsection
toconceptualizetheartofknowingthroughcomputersimulations.
References
Beisbart,Claus.2012.Howcancomputersimulationsproducenewknowledge?EuropeanJournal
forPhilosophyofScience2(3):395–434.