|
Notes on software and processes for collecting, analyzing and acting on data |
||
|
More:
Related:
Working Notes: Current Working Notes These notes are the contents of a whiteboard in Tinderbox that I'm using to map out my (more . . .)
Granularity and the Law of Large Numbers: Information, von Baeyer: "Under the laws of classical physics, permanence and small numbers are incompatible. Smoothness, permanence, regularity can only (more . . .)
Regularity and Large Numbers: Highly regular, predictable events are likely to be reducible to laws. Whether we consider an abstract mathematical relationship or (more . . .) About this siteSyndication available |
William James is right. Stephen Toulmin, at least as far as I've gotten in Foresight and Understanding is wrong. Only predication matters in assessing the truth of a theory. Explanation without prediction is not useful, has no practical utility. I keep thinking of Wolfram's "A New Science" in which he uses simple algorithms to create chaotic or complex, unpredictable patterns. These can just as easily arise from simple mathematical expressions. If you live in one of those chaotic worlds that is generated by algorithm or expression, knowing the underlying method for generating the chaos may be interesting, but is ultimately useless. It seems there should be some power in knowing the secret to generating chaos and there is if the chaos is always the same. Wolfram's algorithms always generate the same sequence. If you lived in one of the chaotic worlds but could predict the sequence, you would have God-like knowledge beyond the imagination of those who didn't know the formula and saw only chaos. But that knowledge is just predictive, not at all explanatory. A similar appearing algorithm might result in a regular pattern. There's no explanatory power in the rule that creates the behavior, but knowledge of the rule can be useful in prediction. Explanatory theories without predictive powers are without utility. A truer theory predicts more accurately or in more cases. Understanding doesn't seem to enter into it. |
|
|
Copyright 2003 by James J. Vornov |