In short, explanations typically talk about why/how/because.
The words “explanatory theory” seem to me to have a lot of fuzziness hiding behind them. But to the extent that “the sun is powered by nuclear fusion” is an explanatory theory I would say that the proposition ~T is just the union of many explanatory theories: “the sun is powered by oxidisation”, “the sun is powered by gravitational collapse”, and so on for all explanatory theories except “nuclear fusion”.
Unless you’re claiming non-explanatory theories don’t exist at all, then ~T includes both explanations and non-explanations. It doesn’t consist of a union of many explanations.
A Bayesian might instead define theories T₁′ = “quantum theory leads to approximately correct results in the following circumstances …”
You’re changed it to an instrumentalist theory which focuses on prediction instead of explanation. Deutsch refutes instrumentalism in his first book, FoR, also at the link above.
Where’s the explanation? What do you think an explanation is? You said the theory gets “approximately correct results” in some circumstances – doesn’t that mean making approximately correct predictions?
Yes, in BoI. http://beginningofinfinity.com/books
In short, explanations typically talk about why/how/because.
Unless you’re claiming non-explanatory theories don’t exist at all, then ~T includes both explanations and non-explanations. It doesn’t consist of a union of many explanations.
You’re changed it to an instrumentalist theory which focuses on prediction instead of explanation. Deutsch refutes instrumentalism in his first book, FoR, also at the link above.
How so? I think it’s still an explanatory theory, it just explains 99% of something instead of 100%.
Where’s the explanation? What do you think an explanation is? You said the theory gets “approximately correct results” in some circumstances – doesn’t that mean making approximately correct predictions?