传统实验比计算机模拟在认知上更优越?

Is Traditional Experiment Epistemically Superior To Computer Simulation?

计算机模拟在现代科学各领域的广泛深入应用,深刻改变了现代科学研究的方法与传统,如何正确认识和理解计算机模拟在现代科学研究进程中的作用和角色以及计算机模拟与传统科学实验之间的关系,无论对科学界还是对哲学界都具有重要意义。基于此动机,本文以当前关于计算机模拟的哲学争论焦点(即"计算机模拟与传统科学实验在认知效力上孰更为优胜")为锲入点,从科学哲学视角,对该场争论中对立双方的代表性观点进行梳理,在此基础上,结合当代科学实践的若干典型案例,通过剖析指出争论各方在此问题认识上存在的误区与偏差。本文其后提出"共生互荣"解释模型,该模型从更广阔和深入的视角更为清晰与准确全面地描述与解释了计算机模拟与传统实验之间彼此渗透依赖融合、紧密互动与持续动态演化的复杂多面的认知关系,该模型同时也涵盖容纳了当前争论各方的合理观点。

The current philosophical argument about computer simulation focuses on its superiority compared with traditional experiment, in which one side insists that traditional experiment is better than computer simulation on epistemic reliability, while the other side holds that there is no intrinsic difference in epistemic power between the two. This kind of contrary view reflects the contradictive and fuzzy understanding of the public on this important issue. In this paper, combining with several typical cases, through in-depth analysis, I point out the misunderstanding and inadequate understanding of the controversy over this problem. From a broader and deeper perspective, I continue to explain the mutual dependence and penetration between traditional experiment and computer simulation as well as their continuous interaction and evolution together, namely, the relationship of ＂mutual benefit and prosperity＂.