Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
I have elsewhere divided the information standing behind an explanation (i.e., the information being explained) into two very different categories: valid and hypothesized information. Valid information is defined to be the actual information to be explained and hypothesized information is an essential part of the explanation. That is to say, hypothesized information must be true if the explanation is to be valid; however, if the explanation is removed (discounted or disproved) the hypothesized information may also be removed. Valid information, on the other hand, being the actual information to be explained can not ever be removed: each and every explanation must explain that information.
|
Yes, that seems a reasonable way to categorize the information. Would I be correct that a parallel is to be made between hypothesized information (including the explanation) and a worldview?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
I would like to simplify that argument a bit. Let me put forth the idea that anything which would allow one to predict information not known from information which is known could be called an understood explanation. Now again I bring up another subtle cavil. That idea, as specified, seems to require actual prediction. Let me suggest that an explanation need not actually do such a thing. If we turn the proposed solution around, one could say that, given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not. I do this because this point of view turns the situation to a relationship which can be easily expressed.
I would agree with that; however, I would put it a little differently. Any explanation of anything would, of necessity, add “hypothesized information”.
Would you agree modest or do you have some serious complaints with my position at this point?
|
Yes, I do. The only possible sticky point:
Quote:
|
That idea, as specified, seems to require actual prediction. Let me suggest that an explanation need not actually do such a thing. If we turn the proposed solution around, one could say that, given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not.
|
An explanation would indeed tell us if a prediction were acceptable or not, but I prefer testing the prediction as a means of "testing" the explanation. I say this because additional information can invalidate a seemingly sound explanation. An obvious example is Newtonian mechanics. Michelson and Morley provided information that tested the mechanics (or the explanation) which had previously seemed acceptable. Actually, that may not be the best example given recent discussion. Let's say geocentrism used to be an acceptable explanation for the apparent motion of the sun and moon but that additional information invalidated the predictions and the explanation and required heliocentrism.
So, I'd say it's true that "given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not", but that would not necessary mean the prediction would be correct.
~modest
