Scott Lanum

SSP 205

Spring 2005

Commentary on Axelrod

In one of the opening statements of Axelrod’s paper Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences, he states, “Simulation is a third way of doing science.” To this I’d say, simulation is, in fact, a science in itself. The article as a whole proves this notion to be true, as simulation exists as a way to prove, via another system, facts that cannot be easily proven in the current system. This technique may be likened to how math, physics, chemistry, or any other natural science works in the current system. This may lead one to believe that this “Simulation Science” is natural. To this I’d argue that it is. Simulations occur on so many levels in natural life that to bass a system of observation and analysis on it is only a natural procession. Simulation exists in the lives of dogs when they play fetch, in the lives of adult humans when they practice for any sport, and in the lives of beavers when they build damns where there is no, and never was, any water.

Axelrod wants to look at simulation as a way of doing thought experiments, yet does this not also occur in the natural world? One may see the natural world as a constant thought experiment run by multiple agents each with their own set formulas. These agents perform a thought experiment to test the validity, usefulness, and various other attributes of other agents. When coming to his conclusion on the state of simulation for social sciences he states that progress needs to be made in the institution building of the community of social scientists using simulation. This could not be truer; his analysis feels dead on in that social scientists need to connect themselves with individuals of other scientific disciplines and use simulation to the advantage of all. This would be the point of a simulation science: to come together in a common name for a common effort on a common front.