It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important: prediction
or explanation?
Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity,
it's clear that: each is more important than the other!
Lee
P.S. Someone pointed out to me off-list that I was far from the
first to have had
Le 07-juin-05, à 08:27, Lee Corbin a écrit :
It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important:
prediction
or explanation?
Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity,
it's clear that: each is more important than the other!
Here I think you contradict yourself
...but of courseexplanation is more fundamental than prediction.
Tom Caylor-Original Message-From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:24:42 -0700Subject: Against Fundamentalism!
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:40:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...but of course explanation is more fundamental than prediction.
Tom Caylor
I wouldn't say that! Both of these properties are orthogonal to each
other. Typical scientific theories exist on a tradeoff curve (Pareto
front
Welcome to the list Tom,
I agree with you. Explanation is much more important. It is also much more difficult to agree on what *is* a good explanation. Prediction could remain important, at least in principle, to possibly destroy our favorite explanation, or to put doubt on them. Have you read
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the
hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel
that there are any higher level phenomena which might be reduced
to observer-moments (I am still very skeptical that
6 matches
Mail list logo
