Nick,
Well, it's hard to follow all the different conventions people have for the
terms they use. I agree that a generalization implies a broader and more
inclusive way of explaining things, but I find that most generalizations are
rather particular to the assumptions of the person or the comm
Carl,
I think I agree, but how does a "robust theory" remain "accessible by" many
explanations. In a sense that's my general idea of having one theory in any
local circumstance for how to search for explanations for the "what's
happening" question. As I do that it generally involves noting "wha
(sorry if this is a repeat)
A robust theory would then be one that is accessible by many
explanations, unifying them by showing how they could make equivalent
paths through an heuristic. It would serve to maintain open questions by
allowing them to be more local. A theory with only one explana
A robust theory would then be one that is accessible by many
explanations, unifying them by showing how they could make equivalent
paths through an heuristic. It would serve to maintain open questions
by allowing them to be more local. A theory with only one explanation
would be a crappy the
Phil,
I strongly disagree.
The difference between an explanation and a generalization is, plainly, a model
of the process being summarized in the generalization. Explanations inevitably
invoke metaphysics ... not only a generalization but a vision, picture, a
understanding of how the world
Why prediction fails does not seem to be just believing your own script.. as
it were.I'm suggesting that "a theory of some sort" is generally the
same thing as "a statement of what generally has happened". The real
question may be sort of the opposite of "but who would believe such a
thing?
Ah, Phil. If you are correct that the answer to "what generally happens here?"
is regarded by some as an "explanation", then the source of the confusion
underlying this conversation becomes immediately evident.
But who would believe such a silly thing?! "What generally happens here"
is