Can simulations be explanatory an why do they seem not to be?

Abstract

Computer simulations are usually considered to be non-explanatory because, when a simulation reveals that a property is instantiated in a system, it does not enable the exact identification of what it is that brings this property out (relevance requirement). Conversely, analytical deductions are widely considered to yield explanations and understanding. In this paper, I emphasize that explanations should satisfy the relevance requirement and argue that the more they do so, the more they have explanatory value. Finally, I show that this emphasis on relevance has the unexpected consequence that simulations can sometimes be explanatory.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,459

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Importance and Explanatory Relevance: The Case of Mathematical Explanations.Gabriel Târziu - 2018 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 49 (3):393-412.
Varying the Explanatory Span: Scientific Explanation for Computer Simulations.Juan Manuel Durán - 2017 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 31 (1):27-45.
General Theory of Topological Explanations and Explanatory Asymmetry.Daniel Kostic - 2020 - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375 (1796):1-8.
Deflationism and the success argument.By Nic Damnjanovic - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):53–67.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
628 (#42,961)

6 months
4 (#1,272,377)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references