In response to Jane?s comments ? I admit that understanding and prediction are not the same thing but they are much more closely related than most people appreciate, in my opinion. I would go so far as to say that prediction is a necessary if not sufficient condition of understanding. So while it is possible to predict without understanding (as in Jane?s Babylonian?s example ? although I knew nothing about the Babylonians and their ability to predict, I have no doubt that?s true) I think it is impossible to demonstrate understanding without prediction. In fact, I realized that I can?t come up with a definition of understanding that satisfies me without talking about prediction (none of the on-line definitions that I found worked very well for me). My definition of understanding would be ?The ability to make specific predictions based on a general description of how the world works.? Now, I guess it?s possible that somebody could understand how the world works but not be able to make any predictions but that means that they can?t demonstrate their understanding. In my opinion, understanding that can?t be demonstrated has little(no?) value because I can?t distinguish that person from all the people who claim they have understanding but have none. My above definition leaves room for ?thinking? you understand when you don?t, in situations where you make good predictions for the wrong reasons. But, even here prediction is critical because we will only detect our mistake when we try to make a new prediction and our ?understanding? leads us astray. That is, the only evidence of our mistake will be poor prediction. So, my original claim was not that understanding and prediction are the same thing but that understanding cannot be demonstrated without prediction. And predictions have to better than we would make by chance. And the only way to evaluate that is through some measure of probability/likelihood. Best.

Jeff Houlahan

PS I would be interested to hear any examples where understanding can be demonstrated without prediction.

Reply via email to