tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145485148350066537.post3357606846753201063..comments2024-03-20T14:44:25.360-07:00Comments on Adventures in Biodiversity Science: Why We BlogBiodudehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14725715394632389624noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145485148350066537.post-13017592647187328682011-01-29T14:10:53.497-08:002011-01-29T14:10:53.497-08:00I agree that scientific explanations are essential...I agree that scientific explanations are essentially a heuristic for generating predictions. Predictions are also used to test a theory: a theory with no *testable* predictions is arguably useless, and "unscientific" in the Popperian sense.<br /><br />My concern is that some see prediction as the goal of science, and that's where I disagree. I like your narrative approach, and I think that's largely true. My aversion to prediction as a goal also stems from the fact that it is sometimes just plain impractical. Science may be able to explain the trajectory of a projectile on the surface of the earth, and the idea is that if you have enough data on mass, wind direction and velocity, gravity, force exerted, etc. then you can predict the path a projectile will take. This approach was used to great effect in the second world war, and is still used for sending things to space. But when you just want to throw a rock at something, being able to do calculus is much less important than practice and experience.<br /><br />I think part of my struggle with the goal of science is dealing with uncertainty. Uncertainty is much less of a concern when explaining something that trying to make a prediction: Will the planet warm 1 or 3 degrees in the next 50 years? We worry a lot less about the same degree of error when reconstructing historical temperatures, at least on a personal level. Ya know why? It's already happened! What we actually care about is how we understand and relate to it. But the same difference in the future can affect how we prepare for it.<br /><br />Certainly, learning from the past makes it easier to modify our world the way we want. But, we have to accept that no prediction is bullet-proof, so I worry less about that and more about explanations, which are more practical, and arguably more to the point. Explaining my own data is hard enough!Biodudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14725715394632389624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145485148350066537.post-76512624937925810032011-01-28T14:09:21.982-08:002011-01-28T14:09:21.982-08:00I think it's really interesting that you privi...I think it's really interesting that you privilege the explanation aspect of science over prediction. I have said before that I think science is a way for people to form 'narratives of understanding' about the world, with the aim to managing their interactions in it. As you acknowledge that the facticity of explanation is temporally dependent, why not simply treat explanatory theories as a heuristic device for generating predictions?michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258768941774990121noreply@blogger.com