There's always the difference between the kind of question you ask and the
type of prediction and explanation for it.For example, you might ask
either what generally happens here or what is happening here. The
first asks for a simple explanation and a rule of thumb type prediction.
It might
Ah, Phil. If you are correct that the answer to what generally happens here?
is regarded by some as an explanation, then the source of the confusion
underlying this conversation becomes immediately evident.
But who would believe such a silly thing?! What generally happens here
is just
Why prediction fails does not seem to be just believing your own script.. as
it were.I'm suggesting that a theory of some sort is generally the
same thing as a statement of what generally has happened. The real
question may be sort of the opposite of but who would believe such a
Phil,
I strongly disagree.
The difference between an explanation and a generalization is, plainly, a model
of the process being summarized in the generalization. Explanations inevitably
invoke metaphysics ... not only a generalization but a vision, picture, a
understanding of how the
A robust theory would then be one that is accessible by many
explanations, unifying them by showing how they could make equivalent
paths through an heuristic. It would serve to maintain open questions
by allowing them to be more local. A theory with only one explanation
would be a crappy
(sorry if this is a repeat)
A robust theory would then be one that is accessible by many
explanations, unifying them by showing how they could make equivalent
paths through an heuristic. It would serve to maintain open questions by
allowing them to be more local. A theory with only one
I just downloaded the OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/ for Mac --
named SoyLatte
http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/
.. and it works like a charm!
This is really nifty: in the past, Mac users had to wait for ages for
Apple to catch up, mainly due to window manager / swing
