But that, of course, is scary, since there's all the difference in the world between computer results and real data. If data are what scientists use in at least some types of problems to keep them honest, and if it starts to get confusing as to what constitutes data . . . The problem is that as the scale and complexity of our computer simulations increases, so does our inability in many cases to make sense of those simulations. As yet we lack even the conceptual tools to think about the reliability and scientific validity of many of our most intriguing simulations. But people here and elsewhere are beginning now to think about developing a science of simulation.
Computer simulations are the wave of the future.
If you ask how has it really changed things in terms of our understanding of natural or human phenomena, I'd have to think about it, because I don't think the answer is obvious. On the other hand, SFI has had, I think, real successes in terms of seeding networks of people, generating metaphors, making connections among disciplines, getting people to think in new ways, training young people through the summer schools and workshops. We've made a beginning, but there's a lot to do.