3 ms·

No, I distinguish between "explainable" and "explanatory". To give an example, the theory of epicycles is a predictive model, that is also explainable, but it i

No, I distinguish between "explainable" and "explanatory". To give an example, the theory of epicycles is a predictive model, that is also explainable, but it is not explanatory. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are an explanatory model that is also explainable and predictive. The theory of epicycles is predictive because it predicts the motions of the planets, as they are observed in the night sky. It is explainable because anyone can perform the necessary calculations and understand how the predicted motions are, well, predicted. The theory of epicycles is not an explanatory model because it does not explain why the planets should move in circular orbits with epicyclical sub-orbits. Kepler's laws are explanatory because they explain planetary motion as a result of Newton's law of universal gravitation, are predictive because they can be used to predict the motion of the planets and are explainable because anyone can plug in the numbers and see how the results are calculated. So an "explanatory" model is a theory that explains why things happen they way they happen. A predictive model only predicts that some things will happen. An explainable model explains why it made a prediction, but it does not explain why this prediction should hold or with what frequency. Another way to see this is that an explanatory model explains past observations and predicts future observations, while a predictive model only predicts future observations and has no explanatory power, cannot explain why past phenomena were observed. An "explainable" model is just a model that people can understand. It's not more complicated than that.

nootropicat 4y ago
>The theory of epicycles is not an explanatory model because it does not explain why the planets should move in circular orbits with epicyclical sub-orbits. Kepler's laws are explanatory because they explain planetary motion as a result of Newton's law of universal gravitation, are predictive because they can be used to predict the motion of the planets and are explainable because anyone can plug in the numbers and see how the results are calculated. That's not a qualitative difference, it's a quantitative difference. Here you somewhat implicitly claim that models of lower Kolmogorov complexity for same, or better, accuracy are better, but how is that 'explanatory'? The term has no meaning. Ironically Kepler's laws are a better equivalent of epicycles, because they reduce to an imperfect approximation of Newtonian mechanics. Predicting actual orbits in a Newtonian Solar system of perfectly spherical objects with fully known matter distribution can only be done with an iterative solution. The actual, physical reality continuously diverges from all current models, and all we can try to achieve is to reduce that error. It can't ever be eliminated unless the universe is in fact a simulation, and whatever is controlling it decides to copy humans into the parent world, then gives them external access to the full underlying state.
woah 4y ago
> Kepler's laws are explanatory because they explain planetary motion as a result of Newton's law of universal gravitation So "explanatory" means that the theory references some other theory?
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  Oh yes, that's absolutely necessary. That's how science works, right? Every new bit of knowledge builds upon older knowledge. It's theories all the way down, until we hit arbitrary axioms on which all our knowledge is based, though we hope those are somehow based on solid observations. And that's how we understand the world. But just to be clear, I understand there's a colloquial meaning of "theory" as in what people mean when they say "that's just a theory". What I mean by "theory" is an epistemic object with either explanatory, or predictive power, or both. A theory can include multiple laws and hypotheses etc. And a theory "is just a theory" only until we can refute it, or find a better theory that does a better job at explaining things.
- sidlls 4y ago
  In the same way definitions of words reference other words, yes.

nootropicat 4y ago

>The theory of epicycles is not an explanatory model because it does not explain why the planets should move in circular orbits with epicyclical sub-orbits. Kepler's laws are explanatory because they explain planetary motion as a result of Newton's law of universal gravitation, are predictive because they can be used to predict the motion of the planets and are explainable because anyone can plug in the numbers and see how the results are calculated. That's not a qualitative difference, it's a quantitative difference. Here you somewhat implicitly claim that models of lower Kolmogorov complexity for same, or better, accuracy are better, but how is that 'explanatory'? The term has no meaning. Ironically Kepler's laws are a better equivalent of epicycles, because they reduce to an imperfect approximation of Newtonian mechanics. Predicting actual orbits in a Newtonian Solar system of perfectly spherical objects with fully known matter distribution can only be done with an iterative solution. The actual, physical reality continuously diverges from all current models, and all we can try to achieve is to reduce that error. It can't ever be eliminated unless the universe is in fact a simulation, and whatever is controlling it decides to copy humans into the parent world, then gives them external access to the full underlying state.

woah 4y ago

> Kepler's laws are explanatory because they explain planetary motion as a result of Newton's law of universal gravitation So "explanatory" means that the theory references some other theory?

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Oh yes, that's absolutely necessary. That's how science works, right? Every new bit of knowledge builds upon older knowledge. It's theories all the way down, until we hit arbitrary axioms on which all our knowledge is based, though we hope those are somehow based on solid observations. And that's how we understand the world. But just to be clear, I understand there's a colloquial meaning of "theory" as in what people mean when they say "that's just a theory". What I mean by "theory" is an epistemic object with either explanatory, or predictive power, or both. A theory can include multiple laws and hypotheses etc. And a theory "is just a theory" only until we can refute it, or find a better theory that does a better job at explaining things.
sidlls 4y ago
In the same way definitions of words reference other words, yes.