Timeline for What explanation systems do humans use (not just in philosophy)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S 19 hours ago | history | edited | Tom Kist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule-based#Adjective> and <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/known#Adjective>). Used more standard formatting (we have italics and bold on this platform). Used the same verb tense in a sentence.
|
| S 19 hours ago | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule-based#Adjective> and <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/known#Adjective>). Used more standard formatting (we have italics and bold on this platform). Used the same verb tense in a sentence.
|
| 22 hours ago | answer | added | Dale M | timeline score: 3 | |
| yesterday | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S 19 hours ago | |||||
| yesterday | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Well, unless it is electronic, then it is probaby never actually right. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Tom Kist | I'm looking for what a reasonable person would consider a good explanation. I am not looking for logical fallacies. Bad logic -> Prediction that is right more than 1/2 the time, is not a good explanation in my opinion. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Tom Kist | Yes this question is like philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/101448/… but it specifically about: what forms do good explanations take? | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Tom Kist | General Relativity is "closer" to what gravity actually IS: the curvature of space-time, of course there is the question "what is space-time?" but Newton's laws are still incredibly useful. So I'm not looking for ultimate truths, just more insight into how something works and that insight must make my predictions better. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Wastrel | Is the question also asking about logical fallacies? There are many of them, and ordinary humans use them in decision-making to make "reasonably accurate predictions", at least reasonable to them. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Bumble | An answer to a similar question here | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Right, a programmer who understands the programming level but doesn't know details of electronics beats one who can't program well but knows how it works diwn to the transistor level. But I would bet the second one would pass the first one eventually. Mmm, coffee... | |
| 2 days ago | answer | added | NotThatGuy | timeline score: 7 | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | FlatterMann | Gravity "is" what keeps us on the floor and what causes things to fall to the ground. It "is" what keeps planets in orbit. In science we identify things and effects by their properties. We aren't looking for any "deeper explanations". Why? Because philosophers have been trying to do that for 2500 years without any success. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, in other words it's just a waste of time. | |
| 2 days ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 2 days ago | comment | added | keshlam | For many tasks, the explanation system humans use is "someone I trust said it, and/or it seems to tally with my own observations (or at least not be refuted by them), so I will accept it as provisionally true." Relying entirely on direct empiricism and logic just doesn't produce results fast enough for animal survival. | |
| 2 days ago | answer | added | Chris Degnen | timeline score: 2 | |
| 2 days ago | answer | added | David Gudeman | timeline score: 0 | |
| 2 days ago | answer | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | timeline score: 2 | |
| 2 days ago | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 6 | |
| 2 days ago | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| S 2 days ago | review | First questions | |||
| 2 days ago | |||||
| S 2 days ago | history | asked | Tom Kist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |