The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms
Abstract
System dynamics models, as causal models, are much like scientific theories. Hence, in evaluating such models, we assume certain norms of scientific inquiry. Most critics hold that the system dynamics approach does not employ formal, objective, quantitative model validation tests. This article argues that this type of criticism presupposes the traditional logical empiricist philosophy of science, which assumes that knowledge is an objective representation of reality and that theory justification can be an objective, formal process. According to the more recent relativist philosophy of science, knowledge is relative to a given society, epoch, and scientific world view. Theory justification is therefore a semiformal, relative social process. We show that relativist philosophy is consistent with the system dynamics paradigm and discuss the practical implications of the two philosophies of science for system dynamics modelers and their critics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Bohm, D., & Kuhn, T. S. (1964) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2217783 · Cited by 9,130
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
(2013) · A Realist Theory of Science · doi:10.4324/9780203090732-9 · Cited by 7,731
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature: Thirtieth-Anniversary Edition
RORTY, R. (2008) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77b6z · Cited by 4,927
Tractatus logico-philosophicus
(2021) · Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus · doi:10.2307/j.ctv22d4t7n.8 · Cited by 4,869
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1976) · Can Theories be Refuted? · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 · Cited by 3,915
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Popper, K. R., & Weiss, G. (1959) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3060577 · Cited by 2,717
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
CARR, H. W. (1923) · Nature · doi:10.1038/111246a0 · Cited by 2,608
Science, Perception and Reality
Burrell, D. B., & Philosophical Studies, W. S. F. T. N. U. O. I. (1964) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.5840/philstudies196413091 · Cited by 2,215
The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action.
Lewis, C. I., & Dewey, J. (1930) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2014669 · Cited by 1,168
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Creighton, J. E., Locke, J., & Fraser, A. C. (1894) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2175691 · Cited by 1,129
Cited by
Verification and validation of simulation models
Kleijnen, J. P. C. (1995) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00016-6 · Cited by 730
Qudrat-Ullah, H., & Seong, B. S. (2010) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.009 · Cited by 337
Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models
Oliva, R. (2003) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00622-7 · Cited by 314
Augusiak, J., Van den Brink, P. J., & Grimm, V. (2014) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.11.009 · Cited by 296
Dianati, K., Zimmermann, N., Milner, J., Muindi, K., Ezeh, A., Chege, M., Mberu, B., Kyobutungi, C., Fletcher, H., Wilkinson, P., et al. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.430 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Barlas, Y., & Carpenter, S.
- Venue
- System Dynamics Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 148-166
- ISSN
- 0883-7066 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1727
- OpenAlex
- W2035075551
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sdr.4260060203
- The paper
- Barlas, Y., & Carpenter, S. (1990). Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms. System Dynamics Review. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260060203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
