Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!freenet.columbus.oh.us!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplntx!curry
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Subject: Re: Zeleny on predictability (was FIRST order?)
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <DCqtzL.Kyw@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 16:33:21 GMT
References: <DCFyxI.62w@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <GUDEMAN.95Jul30123932@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu> <DCnH4o.Cx8@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <19950802.081603.34@daffodif.demon.co.uk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Lines: 50
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32129 comp.ai.philosophy:31249 sci.logic:13502 sci.cognitive:8798

: >  Andrzej Pindor (pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: > How about taking a pragmatic (as opposed to metaphysical) approach -
: >something counts as an explanation if it can be used to make predictions
: >which are confirmed by experimental observations?  For instance, Bohr's
: >model explained Balmer's series, because the same model  predicted also
: >other spectral lines (for instance Lyman's series) which were susequently
: >found experimentally, etc., etc.  Newton's inverse square law of gravity
: >explains motion of planets, since predictions based on it are born out by
: >experiments. Your comments which followed are totally besides the point
: >(sort of armchair mental gymnastics), if you take a pragmaic view of what
: >counts as an explanation. 

PHIL@daffodif.demon.co.uk wrote:
: I don't think the notion of prediction will do for scientific explanation. 
: Two examples:

: 1. Barometers predict the weather - but they do not explain why that
: particular climate will occur.

: 2. Plate Tectonics explains (and is counted as a scientific explanation)
: the occurrence of earthquakes but at present has a very difficult time making
: accurate predictions.


: What is required in *any* kind of explanation is the conferring of
: understanding relative to the inquirer's purpose for seeking an explanation.
: Sometimes this will be prediction, other times deductions from law-like
: generalisations, reduction, illustration by models etc. In other words the
: key notion to explanation is understanding, and this is relative to the
: purpose of the inquiry, as well as the background knowlege of the inquirer. 

I would say an "explanation" is a justification of a law or rule
in one domain in terms of laws and rules of a more fundamental
domain. This does *not* require that the higher order law be
itself reducible to more fundamental laws, only that it can
be justified in terms of such laws. An important instance of this
is an explanation which consists of a model from which observed
regularities can be "predicted", by the application of rules
of a more fundamental discipline to the model.
Plate tectonics, for examples, explains many geophysical
observations (continental shapes, past propinquities of
regions, etc) in terms of a model of geological structure.
Predictions are made from the model by using laws of
fluid flows, mechanics, chemistry, etc. Many as-yet-unobserved
regularities can be predicted from such a model (e.g. the
presence of certain fossils in certain regions,
or continental shelf motions).

Bo

