ABSTRACT
In this paper, I analyze the question of whether computer simulation is, in any special way, affected by what has variously been called the “experimenter’s regress” (Collins 1985) or “data-technique circles” (Culp 1995). Such a regress, it has been argued, may obtain when the only criterion scientists have for determining whether an experimental technique (or simulation) is ‘working’ is the production of ‘correct’ (i.e., expected) data. It may seem plausible to assume that techniques of computer simulation are especially prone to such regress-like situations, given that they are further removed from nature (in ways to be specified) than traditional experimentation. In public perception, too, there appears to be a gap between the trust that is placed in the experimental success of science, as opposed to its use of computer simulation methods (e.g., in predicting global climate change).
