IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-02619-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational philosophy: reflections on the PolyGraphs project

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Ball

    (Northeastern University)

  • Alexandros Koliousis

    (Northeastern University)

  • Amil Mohanan

    (Northeastern University)

  • Mike Peacey

    (University of Bristol)

Abstract

In this paper, we situate our computational approach to philosophy relative to other digital humanities and computational social science practices, based on reflections stemming from our research on the PolyGraphs project in social epistemology. We begin by describing PolyGraphs. An interdisciplinary project funded by the Academies (BA, RS, and RAEng) and the Leverhulme Trust, it uses philosophical simulations (Mayo-Wilson and Zollman, 2021) to study how ignorance prevails in networks of inquiring rational agents. We deploy models developed in economics (Bala and Goyal, 1998), and refined in philosophy (O’Connor and Weatherall, 2018; Zollman, 2007), to simulate communities of agents engaged in inquiry, who generate evidence relevant to the topic of their investigation and share it with their neighbors, updating their beliefs on the evidence available to them. We report some novel results surrounding the prevalence of ignorance in such networks. In the second part of the paper, we compare our own to other related academic practices. We begin by noting that, in digital humanities projects of certain types, the computational component does not appear to directly support the humanities research itself; rather, the digital and the humanities are simply grafted together, not fully intertwined and integrated. PolyGraphs is notably different: the computational work directly supports the investigation of the primary research questions, which themselves belong decidedly within the humanities in general, and philosophy in particular. This suggests an affinity with certain projects in the computational social sciences. But despite these real similarities, there are differences once again: the computational philosophy we practice aims not so much at description and prediction as at answering the normative and interpretive questions that are distinctive of humanities research.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Ball & Alexandros Koliousis & Amil Mohanan & Mike Peacey, 2024. "Computational philosophy: reflections on the PolyGraphs project," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02619-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02619-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-02619-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-02619-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 1998. "Learning from Neighbours," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(3), pages 595-621.
    2. David Lazer & Eszter Hargittai & Deen Freelon & Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon & Kevin Munger & Katherine Ognyanova & Jason Radford, 2021. "Meaningful measures of human society in the twenty-first century," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7866), pages 189-196, July.
    3. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    4. Jan Luhmann & Manuel Burghardt, 2022. "Digital humanities—A discipline in its own right? An analysis of the role and position of digital humanities in the academic landscape," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(2), pages 148-171, February.
    5. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "What matters and how it matters: A choice-theoretic representation of moral theories," MPRA Paper 71305, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Stephen Eubank & Hasan Guclu & V. S. Anil Kumar & Madhav V. Marathe & Aravind Srinivasan & Zoltán Toroczkai & Nan Wang, 2004. "Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 429(6988), pages 180-184, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    2. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    3. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    4. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.
    5. Battiston, Pietro & Stanca, Luca, 2015. "Boundedly rational opinion dynamics in social networks: Does indegree matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 400-421.
    6. Fernandes, Marcos R., 2023. "Confirmation bias in social networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 59-76.
    7. Christos Mavridis & Nikolas Tsakas, 2021. "Social Capital, Communication Channels and Opinion Formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 635-678, May.
    8. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2018. "Strategic Influence in Social Networks," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 29-50, February.
    10. Foerster, Manuel, 2018. "Finite languages, persuasion bias, and opinion fluctuations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 46-57.
    11. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    12. Polanski, Arnold & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 2023. "Homophily and influence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    13. Matjaž Steinbacher & Mitja Steinbacher, 2019. "Opinion Formation with Imperfect Agents as an Evolutionary Process," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 479-505, February.
    14. Kevin JS. Zollman, 2012. "Social network structure and the achievement of consensus," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(1), pages 26-44, February.
    15. Floriana Gargiulo & Sônia Ternes & Sylvie Huet & Guillaume Deffuant, 2010. "An Iterative Approach for Generating Statistically Realistic Populations of Households," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, January.
    16. Saturnino Luz & Masood Masoodian, 2022. "Exploring Environmental and Geographical Factors Influencing the Spread of Infectious Diseases with Interactive Maps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    18. Andreas Koulouris & Ioannis Katerelos & Theodore Tsekeris, 2013. "Multi-Equilibria Regulation Agent-Based Model of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(1), pages 51-70.
    19. Bisin, Alberto & Moro, Andrea, 2022. "Spatial‐SIR with network structure and behavior: Lockdown rules and the Lucas critique," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 370-388.
    20. Charness, Gary & Corominas-Bosch, Margarida & Frechette, Guillaume R., 2007. "Bargaining and network structure: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 28-65, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02619-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.