4 ms·

All scientific explanations are fundamentally ad hoc. We get scientific facts through falsifiable models based on evidence. It’s the same in economics, but eco

All scientific explanations are fundamentally ad hoc. We get scientific facts through falsifiable models based on evidence. It’s the same in economics, but economics is a field that is both complex (informationally) and complicated (incidentally), so our models aren’t very good. Often they’re only falsifiable in theory, because a practical assessment would be too costly.

raincom 11y ago
I have not heard anyone from Philosphy of sciences saying "all scientific explanations are fundamentally ad hoc". In fact, Adolf Grunbaum studied the nature of Adhoc explanations. Even Imre Lakatos claimed that prima facie ad hoc (those from the protective belt) can end up being non ad hoc. What I have in my mind when I said mathematical models provide ad hoc suport is this. Today, it is consensus in the philosphy of sciences that there are two kinds of confirmation of a theory: confirming instance vs positive instance. Mathematical models generate "positive instances". A non-adhoc hypothesis generates confirming instances, a special type of positive instances. For more, pp. 61-62, Larry Laudan's "Science and Relativism: some key controversies in the philosophy of science. Lets look at a hypothesis that says "All swans are white". One keeps on doing field work, saying that 1001th swan is white, 1002th swan is white, etc. All these field reports are "positive" instances. Such field reports don't add much.
- evincarofautumn 11y ago
  We differ on our definition of “ad hoc”. I wanted to convey the fact that scientific explanation is just that—explanation. The basis of science is the creation of mathematical models to approximate phenomena that we observe.
  - raincom 11y ago
    Definitional fiat does not solve any problem. For more, http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm & http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

raincom 11y ago

I have not heard anyone from Philosphy of sciences saying "all scientific explanations are fundamentally ad hoc". In fact, Adolf Grunbaum studied the nature of Adhoc explanations. Even Imre Lakatos claimed that prima facie ad hoc (those from the protective belt) can end up being non ad hoc. What I have in my mind when I said mathematical models provide ad hoc suport is this. Today, it is consensus in the philosphy of sciences that there are two kinds of confirmation of a theory: confirming instance vs positive instance. Mathematical models generate "positive instances". A non-adhoc hypothesis generates confirming instances, a special type of positive instances. For more, pp. 61-62, Larry Laudan's "Science and Relativism: some key controversies in the philosophy of science. Lets look at a hypothesis that says "All swans are white". One keeps on doing field work, saying that 1001th swan is white, 1002th swan is white, etc. All these field reports are "positive" instances. Such field reports don't add much.

evincarofautumn 11y ago
We differ on our definition of “ad hoc”. I wanted to convey the fact that scientific explanation is just that—explanation. The basis of science is the creation of mathematical models to approximate phenomena that we observe.
- raincom 11y ago
  Definitional fiat does not solve any problem. For more, http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm & http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/