(1) the objective of science is, or should be, to increase our ‘credence’ for true theories
Well, no. Theories are maps, and are by necessity simpler than the territory (the universe is it’s own best model). There is no such thing as a “true” theory. There are only theories which predict a larger or smaller subset of future states better or worse than others.
I think this neglects the idea of “physical law,” which says that theories can be good when they capture the dynamics and building-blocks of the world simply, even if they are quite ignorant about the complex initial conditions of the world.
I disagree with viewing theories as predictive. Deutsch calls that instrumentalism and refutes in in his book, The Fabric of Reality, in chapter 1. The basic problem is predictions aren’t explanations about what’s going on (the causality behind the prediction) or why.
Yet some philosophers — and even some scientists — disparage the role of explanation in science. To them, the basic purpose of a scientific theory is not to explain anything, but to predict the outcomes of experiments: its entire content lies in its predictive formulae. They consider that any consistent explanation that a theory may give for its predictions is as good as any other — or as good as no explanation at all — so long as the predictions are true. This view is called instrumentalism (because it says that a theory is no more than an ‘instrument’ for making predictions). To instrumentalists, the idea that science can enable us to understand the underlying reality that accounts for our observations is a fallacy and a conceit. They do not see how anything a scientific theory may say beyond predicting the outcomes of experiments can be more than empty words. Explanations, in particular, they regard as mere psychological props: a sort of fiction which we incorporate in theories to make them more easily remembered and entertaining.
To instrumentalists, the idea that science can enable us to understand the underlying reality that accounts for our observations is a fallacy and a conceit
“understand” is doing a lot of work in this. What does it mean beyond “ability to make predictions conditional on future actions”?
teaching you things like what “understand” means is a large task. are you willing to put in effort by e.g. reading a book chapter, and answering questions to identify what you do and don’t already understand about the matter?
When you say “ability to explain”, I hear “communicate a model that says what will happen (under some set of future conditions/actions)”.
There is no such thing as “why” in the actual sequence of states of matter in the universe. It just is. Any causality is in the models we use to predict future states. Which is really useful but not “truth”.
it’s not, i don’t know why you’re making a stink about it. i think you just wanted indirect evidence to convince yourself to stop conversing and be able to blame me in your head.
(1) the objective of science is, or should be, to increase our ‘credence’ for true theories
Well, no. Theories are maps, and are by necessity simpler than the territory (the universe is it’s own best model). There is no such thing as a “true” theory. There are only theories which predict a larger or smaller subset of future states better or worse than others.
I think this neglects the idea of “physical law,” which says that theories can be good when they capture the dynamics and building-blocks of the world simply, even if they are quite ignorant about the complex initial conditions of the world.
Sure. This is true of all maps and models. As simple as possible, but no simpler.
That simplicity ALWAYS comes with a loss of fidelity to the actual state of the universe.
I disagree with viewing theories as predictive. Deutsch calls that instrumentalism and refutes in in his book, The Fabric of Reality, in chapter 1. The basic problem is predictions aren’t explanations about what’s going on (the causality behind the prediction) or why.
(Deutsch goes on at too much length to paste.)
“understand” is doing a lot of work in this. What does it mean beyond “ability to make predictions conditional on future actions”?
teaching you things like what “understand” means is a large task. are you willing to put in effort by e.g. reading a book chapter, and answering questions to identify what you do and don’t already understand about the matter?
Almost certainly not. I take this as confirmation that “understand” is the key misleadingly-simple word in your quote.
Not at all. It means the ability to explain, not just say what will happen.
When you say “ability to explain”, I hear “communicate a model that says what will happen (under some set of future conditions/actions)”.
There is no such thing as “why” in the actual sequence of states of matter in the universe. It just is. Any causality is in the models we use to predict future states. Which is really useful but not “truth”.
You’re hearing wrong.
it’s not, i don’t know why you’re making a stink about it. i think you just wanted indirect evidence to convince yourself to stop conversing and be able to blame me in your head.