It's worth bearing in mind that this is not entirely true. For example, when we hear that John Smith won the lottery last week, what is the explanation? Answer: it's a random lottery, somebody is going to win. But we could not predict from this that John Smith was going to win the lottery.
However, the prediction that someone was going to win was entirely feasible based on the explanation that it was a random lottery. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Russell Wallace <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Two notes. >> >> #1 - I was taught that a prediction and an explanation are the same >> entity: one is viewed prospectively whilst the other is viewed >> retrospectively. >> > > It's worth bearing in mind that this is not entirely true. For example, > when we hear that John Smith won the lottery last week, what is the > explanation? Answer: it's a random lottery, somebody is going to win. But > we could not predict from this that John Smith was going to win the > lottery. > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
