Advertisement

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 111–126 | Cite as

Simulationen in den Sozialwissenschaften

  • Karsten WeberEmail author
Article

Summary

Simulation in the Social Sciences. Computer simulation—hereafter just called ‘simulation’— more and more is getting an important tool in scientific research and development. Simulations provide powerful means for quite different scientific disciplines, for instance for cosmology as well as for economics, and it seems that they can help to extend the borderline of science. However, from a methodological point of view, besides their benefits one can identify several theoretical problems which can occur in the process of scientific research. Some of these problems shall be discussed and consequences of these problems for the use of simulations shall be outlined.

Keywords

Instrumentalismus Realismus Simulation Theorieprütung 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axelrod R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod R. (1997a) The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton University Press, Princeton/New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod R. (1997b). ‘Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences’. In: Conte R., Hegselmann R., Terna P.(eds.), Simulation Social Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, pp. 21–40Google Scholar
  4. Badiru A.B., Sieger D.B. (1998) ‘Neural Network as a Simulation Metamodel in Economic Analysis of Risky Projects’. European Journal for Operations Research 105:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balzer W. (1997) Die Wissenschaft und ihre Methoden Grundsätze der Wissenschaftstheorie. Alber, Freiburg, München.Google Scholar
  6. Berends P., Romme G. (1999) ‘Simulation as a Research Tool in Management Studies’. European Management Journal 17(6): 576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossel, H.: 1994, Modellbildung und Simulation, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 2., veränderte Auflage.Google Scholar
  8. Casti J.L. (1997) Would-be Worlds. How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Conte R., Hegselmann R., Terna P. (1997). ‘Social Simulation – A New Disciplinary Synthesis’. In: Conte R., Hegselmann R., Terna P. (eds.), Simulation Social Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–17Google Scholar
  10. Deadman P.J. (1999). ‘Modelling Individual Behaviour and Group Performance in an Intelligent Agent-Based Simulation of the Tragedy of the Commons’. Journal of Environmental Management 56:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doran J., Gilbert N. (1994). ‘Simulating Societies: An Introduction’. In: Gilbert N., Doran J. (eds.), Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  12. Doran J., Palmer M., Gilbert N., Mellars P. (1994). ‘The EOS Project: Modeling Upper Palaeolithic Social Change’. In: Gilbert N., Doran J. (eds) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp 195–221Google Scholar
  13. Drogoul A., Ferber J. (1994). ‘Multi-agent Simulation as a Tool for Studying Emergent Processes in Societies’. In: Gilbert N., Doran J. (eds) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp 127–142Google Scholar
  14. Engel, A. und Möhring, M.: 1995, ‘Der Beitrag der sozialwissenschaftlichen Informatik zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Modellbildung und Simulation’, in M. Gsänger and J. Klawitter, Hrsg.: Modellbildung und Simulation in den So- zialwissenschaften, Röll Verlag, Dettelbach, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein J., Axtell R. (1996), Growing Artificial Societies – Social Science from the Bottom Up. MIT Press, Cambridge/MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraedrich D., Goldberg A.: (2000). ‘A Methodological Framework for the Validation of Predictive Simulations’. European Journal of Operational Research 124:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert N. (1996a). ‘Simulation as a Research Strategy’. In: Troitzsch K.G., et al., (eds) Social Science Microsimulation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 448–454Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert N. (1996b). ‘Holism, Individualism and Emergent Properties. An Approach from the Perspective of Simulation’. In: Hegselmann R., Mueller U., Troitzsch K.G. (eds) Modelling and Simulation on the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert N. (1998). ‘Simulation: An Introduction to the Idea’. In: Ahrweiler P., Gilbert N. (eds) Computer Simulations in Science and Technology Studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert N., Troitzsch K.G. (1999). Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  21. Glasersfeld, E. v.: 1995, ‘Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffs der Objektivität’ in H. v. Foerster, et al. (Hrsg.) Einführung in den Konstruktivismus. Piper, München, 2. Auflage, pp. 9–40.Google Scholar
  22. Glasersfeld, E. v.: 1997, Wege des Wissens. Konstruktivistische Erkundungen durch unser Denken, Carl Auer, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Hegselmann R. (1996a) ‘Understanding Social Dynamics: The Cellular Automata Approach’. In: Troitzsch K.G., et al., (eds) Social Science Microsimulation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 282–306Google Scholar
  24. Hegselmann R. (1996b). ‘Cellular Automata in the Social Sciences’. In: Hegselmann R., Mueller U., Troitzsch K.G.(eds) Modelling and Simulation in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 209–233Google Scholar
  25. Hejl, P. M.: 1995, ‘Konstruktion der sozialen Konstruktion. Grundlinien einer konstruktivistischen Sozialtheorie’, in H. v. Foerster, et al. (Hrsg.) Einführung in den Konstruktivismus, Piper, München, 2. Auflage, pp. 109–146.Google Scholar
  26. Hempel C.G. (1977). Aspekte wissenschaftlicher Erklärung. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Janich P. (1996). Konstruktivismus und Naturerkenntnis. Auf dem Weg zum Kulturalismus. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  28. Keller E.F. (2003). ‘Models, Simulation, and “Computer Experiments”’. In: Radder H. (ed) The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 198–215Google Scholar
  29. Kleijnen J.P.C. (1995). ‘Verification and Validation of Simulation Models’. European Journal of Operational Research 82:145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kleijnen J.P.C., Sargent R.G. (2000) ‘A Methodology for Fitting and Validating Metamodels in Simulation’. European Journal of Operational Research 120:14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klüver J. (1998). ‘Modelling Science as an Adaptive and Self-Organising Social System: Concepts, Theories and Modelling Tools’. In: Ahrweiler P., Gilbert N. (eds) Computer Simulations in Science and Technology Studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  32. Klüver, J., Stoica, Chr. and Schmidt, J.: 2003, ‘Formal Models, Social Theory and Computer Simulations: Some Methodical Reflections’. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/8.html.Google Scholar
  33. Krausz E. (2000) The Limits of Science. Peter Lang Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Latané B. (1996). ‘Dynamic Social Impact. Robust Predictions from Simple Theory’. In: Hegselmann R., Mueller U., Troitzsch K.G. (eds) Modelling and Simulation on the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 287–310Google Scholar
  35. Lee M.H., Lacey N.J. (2003). ‘The Influence of Epistemology on the Design of Artificial Agents’. Minds and Machines 13: 367–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leplin J. (1997) A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  37. Lindenberg, S.: 1971, ‘Simulation und Theoriebildung’, in H. Albert, Hrsg.: Sozial-theorie und soziale Praxis, Verlag Anton Hain, Meisenheim am Glan, pp. 78–113.Google Scholar
  38. Malsch, Th., Florian, M., Jonas, M., und Schulz-Schaeffer, I.: 1998, ‘Sozionik’, in: Th. Malsch, Hrsg.: Sozionik. Soziologische Ansichten über künstliche Sozialität, Edition Sigma, Berlin, pp. 9–24.Google Scholar
  39. Manhart K. (1995) KI-Modelle in den Sozialwissenschaften. Oldenbourg, München, Wien.Google Scholar
  40. Marney, J. P. and Tarbert, H. F. E.: 2000, ‘Why do Simulation? Towards a Working Epistemology for Practitioners of the Dark Arts’, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3 (4), http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/3/4/4.html.Google Scholar
  41. Martial, F. von: 1992, ‘Einführung in die Verteilte Künstliche Intelligenz’, KI 1, 6–11.Google Scholar
  42. Meier R.C., Newell W.T., Pazer H.L. (1969) Simulation in Business and Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs/New Jersey.Google Scholar
  43. Mithen St. (1994). ‘Simulating Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Societies’. In: Gilbert N., Doran J. (eds) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp 165–193Google Scholar
  44. Müller G. (1996). ‘Exploring and Testing Theories: On the Role of Parameter Optimization in Social Science Computer Simulation’. In: Troitzsch K.G. et al., (eds) Social Science Microsimulation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 66–77Google Scholar
  45. Nowak A., Latané B. (1994) ‘Simulating the Emergence of Social Order from Individual Behaviour’. In: Gilbert N. , Doran J. (eds) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  46. Popper, K. R.: 1989, Logik der Forschung, J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, 9. verbesserte Auflage.Google Scholar
  47. Schlick M. (1932) ‘Positivismus und Realismus’. Erkenntnis 3 (33):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schnell R. (1990). ‘Computersimulationen und Theoriebildung’. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 1(42):109–128Google Scholar
  49. Schütte, R.: 1999, ‘Basispositionen in der Wirtschaftsinformatik – ein gemäßigt- konstruktivistisches Programm’, in J. Becker, et al. (Hrsg.), Wirtschafts- informatik und Wissenschaftstheorie. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 211–241.Google Scholar
  50. Séror A.C. (1994). ‘Simulation of Complex Organizational Processes: A Review of Methods and Their Epistemological Foundations’. In: Gilbert N., Doran J. (eds) Simulating Societies. The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. UCL Press, London, pp 19–40Google Scholar
  51. Stegmüller W. (1969). Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Band I: Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und Begründung. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  52. Taber Ch.S., Timpone R.J. (1996). Computational Modeling. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol 113, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks London New Delhi.Google Scholar
  53. Traub J.F. (1996), ‘On Reality and Models’. In: Casti J.L., Karlquist A. (eds) Boundaries and Barriers. On the Limits to Scientific Knowledge. Addison-Wesley, Reading/MA, pp 238–254Google Scholar
  54. Troitzsch K.G. (1990). Modellbildung und Simulation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  55. Vollmer, G.: 1988, Was können wir wissen? Band 1: Die Natur der Erkenntnis, Hirzel, Stuttgart, 2. durchgesehene Auflage.Google Scholar
  56. Wendel, H. J.: 1998, ‘Das Abgrenzungsproblem’, in H. Keuth (Hrsg.), Karl Popper. Logik der Forschung, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 41–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophische Grundlagen kulturwissenschaftlicher AnalyseEuropa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)Frankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations