Search

The ubiquitous presence of computer simulations in all kinds of research areas evidence their role as the new driving force for the advancement of science and engineering research. Nothing seems to escape the image of success that computer simulations project onto the research community and the general public. One simple way to illustrate this consists of asking ourselves how would contemporary science and engineering look like without the use of computer simulations. The answer would certainly diverge from the current image we have of scientific and engineering research. As much as computer simulations are successful, they are also methods that fail in their purpose of inquiring about the world; and as much as researchers make use of them, computer simulations raise important questions that are at the heart of contemporary science and engineering practice. In this respect, computer simulations make a fantastic subject of research for the natural sciences, the social sciences, engineering and, as in our case, also for philosophy. Studies on computer simulations touch upon many different facets of scientific and engineering research and evoke philosophically inclined questions of interpretation with close ties to problems in experimental settings and engineering applications (...)

This article aims to develop a new account of scientific explanation for computer simulations. To this end, two questions are answered: what is the explanatory relation for computer simulations? and what kind of epistemic gain should be expected? For several reasons tailored to the benefits and needs of computer simulations, these questions are better answered within the unificationist model of scientific explanation. Unlike previous efforts in the literature, I submit that the explanatory relation is between the simulation model and the results of the simulation. I also argue that our epistemic gain goes beyond the unificationist account, encompassing a practical dimension as well.

Several philosophical issues in connection with computer simulations rely on the assumption that results of simulations are trustworthy. Examples of these include the debate on the experimental role of computer simulations \cite{Parker2009, Morrison2009}, the nature of computer data \cite{Barberousse2013, Humphreys2013}, and the explanatory power of computer simulations \cite{Krohs2008, Duran2017}. The aim of this article is to show that these authors are right in assuming that the results of computer simulations are to be trusted when computer simulations are reliable processes. After a short reconstruction of the problem of \textit{epistemic opacity}, the article elaborates extensively on \textit{computational reliabilism}, a specified form of process reliabilism with computer simulations located at the center. The article ends with a discussion of four sources for computational reliabilism, namely, verification and validation, robustness analysis for computer simulations, a history of (un)successful implementations, and the role of expert knowledge in simulations.