Abstract
The words theory, model, and explanation are used in different ways by different writers. Complete agreement on their meanings among natural scientists, social scientists, philosophers of science, engineers and others seems unlikely, since meaning depends partly on context and on discipline-specific conventions. Accepted meanings of these words often depend on subject matter, and on the purposes of research. In practice, a theory, model, or explanation—or a good theory, model, or explanation—for a physicist or chemist may differ in some respects from a theory, model, or explanation for a biologist, a meteorologist, or a demographer. These differences may appear all the greater if one looks at the use of models and theories in practical decision making, as in engineering or policy formation.
It is only now that we have the ability to do complex calculations and simulations that we are discovering that a great many systems seem to have an inherent complexity that cannot be simplified....
Glenn W. Rowe
Ongoing support for research on modelling theories of fertility has been provided by the Social Sciences and Humanlities Research Council of Canada. I am also greatly indebted to Antonella Pinnelli, Department of Demography, Universty of Rome (La Sapienza), and to James W. Vaupel, Director, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, who enabled me to make extended visits to their respective institutes, and to think about these issues under optimal conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6, 169–186.
Ashby, W. R. (1963). Introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Berlinski, D. (1976). On systems analysis: an essay concerning the limitations of some mathematical methods in the social, political, and biological sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burch, T. K. (1996). Icons, strawmen and precision: reflections on demographic theories of fertility decline. The Sociological Quarterly, 37, 59–81.
Burch, T. K. (1997a). Curriculum needs: perspectives from North America. In D.J. Bogue (Ed.), Defining a new demography: curriculum needs for the 1990’s and beyond (pp. 47–56). Chicago: Social Development Center.
Burch, T. K. (1997b). Fertility decline theories: towards a synthetic computer model. Discussion Paper 97–7, Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario.
Cartwright, N. D. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. D. (1999). The dappled world; a study of the boundaries of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coale, A. J. (1973). The demographic transition. In IUSSP (Ed.), International Population Conference, Liège (pp. 53–72). Liège, Belgium: IUSSP.
Ekeland, I. (1988). Mathematics and the unexpected. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kanmazawa, S. (1994). A theory of the value of children. Demography, 31, 375–402.
Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: a cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hammel, E. A. (1990). Socsim II. Working Paper No.29, Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley.
Hanneman, R. A. (1988). Computer-assisted theory building: modeling dynamic social systems. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hannon, B., & Ruth, M. (1994). Dynamic modeling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hanson, B., & Appenzeller, T. (1995). Computers ’95: Fluid Dynamics. Science, 269, 1353.
High Performance Systems, (1996). Stella: an introduction to systems thinking. Hanover, NH: High Performance Systems.
Homans, G. C. (1967). The nature of social science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Jacobsen, C, & Bronson, R. (1995). Computer simulations and empirical testing of sociological theory. Sociological Methods and Research, 23, 479–506.
Jandel Scientific. (1989). TableCurve 2-D: automated curve fitting and equation discovery. San Rafael, CA: Jandel Scientific.
Jasso, G. (1988). Principles of theoretical analysis. Sociological Theory, 6, 1–20.
Lesthaeghe, R., & Vanderhoeft, C. (1997). Ready, willing and able: a conceptualization of transitions to new behavioral forms. IPD Working Paper, Interface Demography, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel.
Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: the improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Meehan, E. J. (1968). Explanation in social science: a system paradigm. Homewood, ILL: The Dorsey Press.
Meehan, E. J. (1981). Reasoned argument in social science; linking research to policy. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.
Miller, R. W. (1987). Fact and method: explanation, confirmation and reality in the natural and social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Péli, G., Bruggeman, J., Masuch, M., & Ónualláin, B. (1994). A logical approach to formalizing organizational ecology. American Sociological Review, 59, 571–593.
Piatt, J. R. (1964, October 16). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.
R.A.K. (1997). Model gets it right—without fudge factors. Science, 276, 1041.
Richardson, G. P., & Pugh, A. L. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with Dynamo. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Roberts, N. et al. (1983). Introduction to computer simulation: the systems dynamics approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rowe, G. W. (1994). Theoretical models in biology: the origin of life, the immune system, and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tanford, C. (1978, June 2). The hydrophobic effect and the organization of living matter. Science, 200, 1012.
Timpone, R. J., & Taber, C. S. (1998). Simulation: analytic and algorithmic analyses of Condorcet’s Paradox—variations on a classical theme. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 72–95.
Wachter, K. W. (1987). Microsimulation of household cycles. In J. Bongaarts, T. K. Burch, & K. W. Wachter (Eds.), Family Demography: Methods and Their Applications (pp. 215–227). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wachter, K. W. (1997). Kinship resources for the elderly. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 352, 1811–1817.
Wachter, K. W., Blackwell, D., & Hammel, E. (1997). Testing the validity of kinship microsimulation. Journal of Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 26, 89–104.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Weinberg, S. (1980, December 12). Conceptual foundations of the unified theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions. Science, 210, 1212.
Wunsch, G. (1995). “God has chosen to give the easy problems to the physicists”: or why demographers need theory. Working Paper No. 179. Institut de Démographie, Université catholique de Louvain.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burch, T.K. (2002). Computer Modelling of Theory: Explanation for the 21st Century. In: Franck, R. (eds) The Explanatory Power of Models. Methodos Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4676-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4676-6_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6122-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4676-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive