The Vindication of Computer Simulations

The relatively recent increase in prominence of computer simulations in scientific inquiry gives us more reasons than ever before for asserting that mathematics is a wonderful tool. In fact, a practical knowledge (a ‘know-how’) of scientific computation has become essential for scientists working in all disciplines involving mathematics. Despite their incontestable success, it must be emphasized that the numerical methods subtending simulations provide at best approximate solutions and that they can also return very misleading results. Accordingly, epistemological sobriety demands that we clarify the circumstances under which simulations can be relied upon. With this in mind, this paper articulates a general perspective to better understand and compare the strengths and weaknesses of various error-analysis methods.

[1]  R. Hamming.  The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics. , 1980 .

[2]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Idealization and modeling , 2009, Synthese.

[3]  Robert M. Corless,et al.  On the epistemological analysis of modeling and computational error in the mathematical sciences , 2013, Synthese.

[4]  T. Trucano,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computational Engineering and Physics , 2004 .

[5]  Herbert Feigl.  De Principiis Non Disputandum , 1951 .

[6]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  Asymptotics and the Role of Minimal Models , 2002, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[7]  Joseph F. Grcar,et al.  John von Neumann's Analysis of Gaussian Elimination and the Origins of Modern Numerical Analysis , 2011, SIAM Rev..

[8]  Leo P. Kadanoff,et al.  Excellence in computer simulation , 2003, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[9]  Mark A. Wilson,et al.  Wandering significance : an essay on conceptual behavior , 2006 .

[10]  Peter Deuflhard,et al.  Numerical Analysis in Modern Scientific Computing , 2003 .

[11]  T. Wolever,et al.  The glycemic index: methodology and clinical implications. , 1991, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[12]  Paul Humphreys,et al.  Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method , 2004 .

[13]  F. Pi-Sunyer,et al.  The Use of Areas Under Curves in Diabetes Research , 1995, Diabetes Care.

[14]  S. Orszag,et al.  Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers I: asymptotic methods and perturbation theory. , 1999 .

[15]  M M Tai,et al.  A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves , 1994, Diabetes Care.

[16]  Donald C. Williams,et al.  The Theory of Probability: An Inquiry into the Logical and Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability. , 1950 .

[17]  Eran Tal.  How Accurate Is the Standard Second? , 2011, Philosophy of Science.

[18]  Eric Winsberg,et al.  Science in the Age of Computer Simulation , 2010 .

[19]  Robert M. Corless,et al.  A Graduate Introduction to Numerical Methods , 2013 .

[20]  Robert M. Corless,et al.  A Graduate Introduction to Numerical Methods: From the Viewpoint of Backward Error Analysis , 2013 .

[21]  Robert W. Batterman,et al.  The devil in the details : asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence , 2002 .

[22]  Nicolas Fillion,et al.  The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences , 2012 .

[23]  Nicolas Fillion,et al.  Numerical Methods, Complexity, and Epistemic Hierarchies , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[24]  Jonathan M. Borwein,et al.  CLOSED FORMS: WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY WE CARE , 2013 .

[25]  W. Salmon.  Hans Reichenbach’s Vindication of Induction , 1991 .