Q&A: Learning from Experience – Prediction
Learning from Experience – Prediction
Question
In the lecture series “Learning from Experience,” in the last few lectures (3 and 4) you refer a great deal to the topic of intuition in science and its importance in gathering the relevant data from the total set of existing facts, and ultimately in constructing the relevant theory.
For some reason, though, you do not address at all the issue of prediction as a central parameter in confirming a theory.
Moreover, prediction is the main advantage of scientific theory over any other explanation (including intuition), because it is capable—if it is true—of predicting phenomena and behavior ahead of time, and not only as a retrospective explanation.
Is there a reason for ignoring this critical dimension of scientific theory?
Answer
This is not a lecture on the philosophy of science. I am trying to explain how our experience works, not only in a scientific context. The appeal to observation is self-evident, and my goal here is to show its limitations.
Discussion on Answer
I do not understand why you are dragging us into a discussion about the philosophy of science. I am trying to show that pure empiricism is an illusion, and that rationalist components are always involved. That’s all. How did we suddenly get into this strange discussion about the sciences? I didn’t solve Schrödinger’s equation for a triangular potential well there either.
You didn’t solve Schrödinger’s equation for the poor cat, but you did try to “prove mathematically” Occam’s razor… so you did immerse yourself head and shoulders in the philosophy of science.
And in the “proof” you presented, the reason for choosing the straight line connecting the 5 points rather than infinitely many curved lines is the ability of the straight line to predict accurately points 6, 7, 8 and onward, which the curved lines will not succeed in doing—that is the reason for choosing the straight line, not Occam’s razor.
The razor generally serves us in places where it is difficult to do experiments and we have only a small number of observations, and then we use it to sort out the true theory… but where it is possible to continue experimenting, prediction is what will decide whose theory is valid.
I’m sorry, but you did not understand the argument. You can see it in greater detail in the article on Occam’s razor.
But the main difference between “naive” observation and scientific observation is the theory that stands behind the observation.
Whereas in naive observation I know that whatever falls from my hand reaches the floor—I have no information that would allow me to predict what will happen on the moon.
In scientific observation, where I measure all the parameters in the lab and build from them a series of formulas [describing the theory that seems correct to me], I manage to infer that there is a connection to mass, and from there to predict with great precision what will happen on the moon.
The ability to predict accurately is the cornerstone of scientific work, and it is the essential difference between our “life experience” and “street smarts” and a collection of kinematics equations.
Isn’t that so?