tanstaafl, of course. The concept of "levels" is good but misleading. It's more useful to think in terms of layers. As Marcus hints, we can combine induction with abduction and triangulate our way towards hypotheses with more and more (layered) structure. The more structure assumed for a hypothesis, the more we tend to call it a "theory".
On 09/09/2016 07:46 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > And this is making me think that we ought perhaps to talk about “levels of > theory”, rather than “theory/non-theory”, persistence forecasting being the > application of a VERY low level theory. On 09/09/2016 08:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think that data mining could be elaborated (and automated) to begin to > create theories. For example, if a regression had an especially simple form > that was also predictive, describe the variables with some ontology that says > why they ought to relate in a deterministic fashion. Instead of just “the > weather will be rainy tomorrow”, report “the weather will be rainy tomorrow > because there is a low pressure system coming in the from the west”, and then > reference mathematical models for how weather systems behave, etc. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
