Jeff's comments are good ones. I don't know why all the apostrophes came through as question marks, but maybe that's appropriate -- these are difficult issues and I, for one, have more questions than answers. On one hand, there are certainly examples that demonstrate that understanding is neither necessary nor sufficient for prediction. On the other hand, the two are certainly connected. It's been pointed out that causal knowledge, unlike statistical knowledge, enables us to predict how a system will behave under interventions. Maybe that helps -- I don't think you can understand a phenomenon without causal knowledge. Also, let's look at pedagogical questions. How do we ask students to demonstrate understanding of concepts?
BTW, I want to clarify a remark I made earlier about chaos. While the long-term behavior of a system exhibiting chaotic behavior cannot be predicted in the sense that the time series can't be predicted, we CAN predict other aspects of its dynamics, such as the parameter values resulting in different modes of behavior. So maybe before we can productively discuss the relationship between prediction and understanding, we ought to clarify what we mean by prediction. How broadly or narrowly do we want to construe the term? Best, Jane On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Jeff Houlahan <jeffh...@unb.ca> wrote: > In response to Jane?s comments ? I admit that understanding and prediction > are not the same thing but they are much more closely related than most > people appreciate, in my opinion. I would go so far as to say that > prediction is a necessary if not sufficient condition of understanding. So > while it is possible to predict without understanding (as in Jane?s > Babylonian?s example ? although I knew nothing about the Babylonians and > their ability to predict, I have no doubt that?s true) I think it is > impossible to demonstrate understanding without prediction. In fact, I > realized that I can?t come up with a definition of understanding that > satisfies me without talking about prediction (none of the on-line > definitions that I found worked very well for me). My definition of > understanding would be ?The ability to make specific predictions based on a > general description of how the world works.? Now, I guess it?s possible > that somebody could understand how the world works but not be able to make > any predictions but that means that they can?t demonstrate their > understanding. In my opinion, understanding that can?t be demonstrated has > little(no?) value because I can?t distinguish that person from all the > people who claim they have understanding but have none. > My above definition leaves room for ?thinking? you understand when you > don?t, in situations where you make good predictions for the wrong reasons. > But, even here prediction is critical because we will only detect our > mistake when we try to make a new prediction and our ?understanding? leads > us astray. That is, the only evidence of our mistake will be poor > prediction. > So, my original claim was not that understanding and prediction are the same > thing but that understanding cannot be demonstrated without prediction. And > predictions have to better than we would make by chance. And the only way to > evaluate that is through some measure of probability/likelihood. Best. > > Jeff Houlahan > > PS I would be interested to hear any examples where understanding can be > demonstrated without prediction. > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist"
