Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T23:59:51.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THEORY FROM CHAOS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2013

Michael Dickson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I explore an agent-based model of the development and dissemination of scientific theory that makes very little use of any pre-defined “social structure” (such as partnerships or collaborations). In these models, under a broad range of values of the parameters, widespread (but not universal) “agreement” about scientific theory emerges. Moreover, the residual disagreement turns out to be important to developing new theories in the face of new evidence.

Type
Discussion
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 465 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barrett, J. A. 2007. ‘Dynamic Partitioning and the Conventionality of Kinds.’ Philosophy of Science, 74: 527–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. A. 2009. ‘The Evolution of Coding in Signaling Games.’ Theory and Decision, 67: 223–37.Google Scholar
Barrett, Dickson, and Purves (in preparation), ‘Prediction Games', Draft available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10042/1/prediction_games.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Kaiser, D. I. and Kaur, J. 2009. ‘Scientific Discovery and Topological Transitions in Collaboration Networks.’ Journal of Informetrics, 3: 210–21.Google Scholar
Börner, K., Maru, J. T. and Goldstone, R. L. 2004. ‘The Simultaneous Evolution of Author and Paper Networks.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101 (Suppl. 1): 5266–73.Google Scholar
Crane, D. 1972. ‘Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.’ Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B., Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P. and Scharnhorst, A. 2011. ‘Simulating the Social Processes of Science.’ Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14: 14–19.Google Scholar
Flinn, J. 2012. ‘The Role of Networks in Science Communication and Engagement with Non-expert Publics.’ Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49: 1–4.Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. 2007. ‘Evolution and the Explanation of Meaning.’ Philosophy of Science, 74: 1–27.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. 2001. ‘The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98: 404–9.Google Scholar
Roth, A., and Erev, I. 1995. ‘Learning in Extensive-Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamics Models in the Intermediate Term.’ Games and Economic Behavior, 8: 164–212.Google Scholar
Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y. and Matsushima, K. 2007. ‘Topological Analysis of Citation Networks to Discover the Future Core Articles.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58: 872–82.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 2009. Signals: Evolution, Learning, and the Flow of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, J. 2009. ‘Signaling Games.’ In Sotomayor, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science, entry 00443.Google Scholar
Zollman, K. J. S., Bergstrom, C. T. and Huttegger, S. M. 2013. ‘Between Cheap and Costly Signals: The Evolution of Partially Honest Communication.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 20121878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed