I think I wasn’t clear. An explanation that isn’t accurate is still an explanation to Deutsch, it just isn’t a good one. Microbiology or bread-spirits are both explanations for rising bread.
That strengthens the case for explanation being ubiquitous at the expense of the case for explanation being important. What can you do with a bad explanation that you can’t do with no explanation?
Deutsch specifies good explanations (laws of nature, scientific theories), and claims the rapid increase of good explanations is because of the invention of the scientific method, and thus explanations are essential for progress.
A bad explanation allows me to make (bad) sense of the world, which makes it appear less chaotic and threatening.
Ah yes, the spirits are causing the indigestion. Now I know that I need only do a specific dance to please them and the discomfort will resolve.
The alternative is suffering for no apparent reason or recourse. At least until we find a good explanation for indigestion.
I think I wasn’t clear. An explanation that isn’t accurate is still an explanation to Deutsch, it just isn’t a good one. Microbiology or bread-spirits are both explanations for rising bread.
That strengthens the case for explanation being ubiquitous at the expense of the case for explanation being important. What can you do with a bad explanation that you can’t do with no explanation?
Deutsch specifies good explanations (laws of nature, scientific theories), and claims the rapid increase of good explanations is because of the invention of the scientific method, and thus explanations are essential for progress.
A bad explanation allows me to make (bad) sense of the world, which makes it appear less chaotic and threatening.
The alternative is suffering for no apparent reason or recourse. At least until we find a good explanation for indigestion.
The lowest limit on bad explanation isnt even zero, it’s negative. For instance, the use of leaching as a cure-all.
Yes, but i’m not sure how that follows from your original question.