Are we always wrong?

Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.

With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.

Edwin de WitOP revised 3 months ago·#1581·· Collapse

There isn’t a clear logical or computational method for determining whether one explanation is better than another. However, David Deutsch offers useful criteria for evaluating explanations. He suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.

← 2nd of 2 versions →·Criticized1

Hide comments

Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months ago·#1600·· Collapse

[Deutsch] suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.

Citations needed, that disclaimer not withstanding.

Criticism of #1581