By focusing directly on explanations, he makes it obvious which predictions are the interesting ones. Indeed, I'd even speculate that someone who didn't have and couldn't acquire the concept of explanations would have trouble grasping the idea that some predictions are more 'interesting' than others and that there's a reliable way to determine which predictions those are.
Oh, I don't think so. If you're a medieval farmer, a prediction of the optimal time to plant is of extreme interest to you regardless of what kind of explanation is behind it. The Ptolemaic epicycles produced good predictions of much interest for a long time even though the explanation behind them was wrong.
Think about it this way: would you rather have a good prediction without an explanation or would you rather have an explanation that is unable to make successful predictions?
However I acknowledge that this is a "what's more important -- the chicken or the egg?" discussion :-)
If you're a medieval farmer, a prediction of the optimal time to plant is of extreme interest to you regardless of what kind of explanation is behind it.
I believe we have switched uses of the word "interesting."
Think about it this way: would you rather have a good prediction without an explanation or would you rather have an explanation that is unable to make successful predictions?
This comparison, to me, maps on to "Would you rather have bricks that aren't arranged as a house, or a house made out of nothing?" Well, it's better t...
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: