Thursday, March 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friedrich Nietzsche, in his seminal piece, On the Genealogy of Morals: A polemical Tract, proclaimed that Knowledge needs many eyes. In our quest for the elusive concepts of Knowledge and Truth, we will need many eyes. To be exact, 90 pairs of eyes. This blog will provide you with a forum outside the four walls of the classroom to share, comment, critique, and engage critically with the TOK course.
Which TOK aims do you think the course has addressed well so far?
Blog Archive
Labels
- arts (13)
- reason (10)
- human sciences (9)
- essays (8)
- ethics (8)
- mathematics (8)
- TOK aims (6)
- belief (6)
- language (6)
- truth (6)
- ways of knowing (6)
- knowledge (5)
- natural sciences (5)
- sense perception (5)
- TOK WEEKEND (4)
- assessment criteria (4)
- areas of knowledge (3)
- emotion (3)
- explanation (3)
- history (3)
- mind (3)
- presentations (3)
- question of the week (3)
- BLOG IMPROVEMENT (2)
- culture (2)
- invention (2)
- justification (2)
- referencing (2)
- religion (2)
- technology (2)
- IB (1)
- Let's comment on this (1)
- academic honesty (1)
- atheism (1)
- beauty (1)
- causation (1)
- certainty (1)
- confirmation bias (1)
- democracy (1)
- discovery (1)
- ideas (1)
- imagination (1)
- innovation (1)
- intellectual property (1)
- intentionality (1)
- judgement (1)
- knower's perspective (1)
- knowledge issues (1)
- law (1)
- laws of thought (1)
- linguistic determinism (1)
- originality (1)
- prediction (1)
- progress (1)
- reactivity (1)
- real life situations (1)
- right (1)
- scenario (1)
- stereotypes (1)
- truth tests (1)
- values (1)
- wrong (1)
Subscribe To tokathgic.blogspot.com
Comments
Comments
Contributors
- *Dutty winer*
- *FRANTIC*STRIVER*^_^v
- 14ir
- Amanda
- Anna
- Aoise Minjiba
- BBuddha
- BINYAM NEGASH
- Chilot Berassa
- Chris
- Chuchu
- Da Peace
- Dirac "Elridge"
- DnumberoneG
- Exemplary Figure
- Femi
- Fowah
- GET IB
- GIFT M
- Gameli
- Gossip Girl!...shhhh
- Henry Amo Mensah
- Hot Ice
- Jay Kay
- Julian H. Kitching
- K B
- KAMENYA
- Kinkerizer
- LJwella
- Lena Korsah
- Meanie
- Melkamu Tesfaye
- Michael Oduro
- MichaelOsa
- Mr. Bediako
- N.A.
- Puppy
- Rebecca Amenu
- Ricky
- S. Kidane
- Sampomaa
- Sharon
- T
- Teferi
- ThePrez
- Toushiro Hitsugaya
- Unknown
- Vladimir40041756
- YAMAMOTO
- aki
- atmart
- brijette
- chocol8 ch!p
- chopadem
- chopwatyahurd
- cydrina
- dozy
- hMensa
- henok tesfahunegn
- johnbosco
- k'kwor
- kamau_j
- kiztok
- kweku
- maaseku
- mak
- mariama
- mercedez bombardi ma benz
- micheal djan
- mizz r!
- okwase
- pepper
- qpwoeiruty
- runako
- s*N*o*W*y*
- shadrack mensah
- twumwaa
- willie-j
- xOxO
- ~
69 comments:
well,l feel one might be able to predict and still can't explain why such may happen..of course true to some extent especially when we have to consider the fact that one knows what they are talking about if in case they had encountered the same situation or cold just be logic..being able to reason, a natural thing..but still how true could tis be?
I may revise my answer but presently, I think to a large extent that this is true.
If occurrences can be explained (i.e causes can be attributed to them) then predictions of future ones can be made, using the past ones as bases: It's reasoning and we do it all the time.
The level of accuracy of these predictions, I think. is the problem. Everything is mutable and so what factors contribute to a situation at certain time may not be applicable to a similar situation in a different time.
Hence, even though this may be largely true, it is entirely true... that's what i think
Just a quick procedural comment here - I like what antye504 says about "this is my answer for now but I may revise it later". That is exactly what we want to encourage - make a provisional commitment but reserve the right to change it after further inspection or exchange. Remember your Ds - this is largely about dialogue rather than debate.
Also, let's try to think of some specific examples in order to illustrate our points (I know it can be difficult but we need to try - otherwise we get bogged down in abstractions and generalities). Cydrina has suggested that there may be things that we can predict but not fully explain. Can we think of any such situation in the areas of knowledge?
ah it explan is not to pridict prediction means t forcast some thing before it happens however to explain is to reason out some thing that has already happend by using our knowlge that is related to it!
well.....
in my opinion, ability to explain constitutes some form of prior knowledge in the sense that you would know a bit about what your are trying to explain. whereas prediction is based solely on assumption (i am under this impression). so i just might not know what will really happen until it does. but then again, if your prediction does actually come to pass, then you caould agree with that statement.
Hello All,
I also think that one need to look at possible meanings of the key words in the question that is 'explain' and 'predict'. Do these words mean the same in for instance, human and natural sciences? what about history?
I think making in making a prediction one MUST have a reason to believe that whatever he/she is predicting may occur and so the predictor(i don't know if it's a word) should have an explanation to go with the prediction. So to a large extent, to explain is to be able to predict. However, the explanation behind the prediction may make sense but the prediction may not come true.
That's what i think...
Guys and gals,
Thank you for the contributions so far.
But there is a problem looming over the horizon - it is that we have not yet created a meaningful context for this discussion. If we don't manage this, we might just end up talking in circles.
Mr. Shadrack made a first prompt with this - how do the concepts of explanation of prediction operate in the different areas of knowledge? This is a good suggestion, because it pushes us toward thinking about particular examples.
Let's try to go further in this direction. Last week was science and technology day, and the topic was biological evolution by natural selection. Is this a good explanation for the diversity of life that we can observe on planet earth today? The overwhelming majority of biologists would answer "yes" to such a question. Now let's look at the other side of the equation - does the theory of evolution by natural selection provide us with good predictions of how organisms will develop in the future? What do you think?
Now let's turn to classical physics and Isaac Newton's universal gravitation (is it a law; is it a theory? - use your experience of TOK lessons to help you decide on this...). This breakthrough in science allows us to predict with astonishing accuracy such things as eclipses of the sun and moon thousands of years into the future (the Ghanaian total solar eclipse of 29th March 2006 was foreseen centuries ago). But is the inverse square equation for gravitation a good explanation of what gravitation is? What do you think?
Now expand your thinking outward toward the human sciences and beyond. What is the relationship of explanation and prediction in economics? In history? You need to illustrate any point you make with an EXAMPLE!
Now is anyone seeing any connection between the various things that your mean TOK teachers are asking you to do at the moment?
I know you can do this. It is simply a matter of will and confidence. So let's show what we have to offer the world...
I find the statement quite interesting and simply put my response is... at times.
In the Natural sciences perhaps to be able to explain is to predict. We hypothesise experiment and make observations that lead to the formulation of theories. These theories provide us with explanatory frameworks for natural phenomena. Consequently, we are able to make predictions.
In the human Sciences however, I doubt that explanation of certain behaviours enables us to predict other behaviours or reactions in other situations simply because of the great deal of variability that human nature affords the human sciences. Even if we can consistently explain and predict the behaviour of one individual it is unlikely that we will be able to predict the behaviour of another. It is not of as much benefit to predict one thing as it is to predict many things. I sincerely doubt that we can inductively reason the behaviour of even several human beings.
Similarly, in History even though it is the historian’s task to explain the cause and effect of the ‘past’ events, he cannot, in my estimation, predict future events with notable accuracy. I have not given too much thought to the arts in this instance but I doubt that the role of the arts is to explain… [For another day I suppose]
In any case, this is my two cents on the question of the week.
NB: Wrote this when the net wasnt working so i didnt get a chance to read the comments. i'll write a response based on previous comments later
(This is being written at lights-out when I should actually be sleeping...)
The question is indeed interesting. I think Takyi has a pretty good point and I would have to agree with him. Having the ability to explain (give meaning to, provide reasons for an event, to give a sufficiently detailed report about something [the last definition is from wikipedia, forgive my referencing]) allows you to make a prediction (a claim that some event will happen in the future [another wiki definition]), but this does not mean that the prediction is accurate. For example, you may be able to explain the factors involved in rainfall, but to predict when rainfall will actually occur is a difficult one.
Predictions based on history are quite difficult to get right because it may deal with humans, who have dynamic personlaities making their reaction somewhat undeterminable.
If you can explain, you can predict based on factors present. But the question of acccuracy would be the deciding factor.
A few thoughts this morning that had their origins in a discussion I had recently with your humanities department teachers...
Does it make any sense to say that the physical sciences deal with "stationary objects" in the sense that things like matter and energy don't appear to change with time, whereas the human sciences have to contend with "moving targets", if you see what I'm trying to get at? If there is any truth in this, what might be the consequences for explanation and prediction?
In history, consider what you know about civil wars in places such as Spain, Russia, Nigeria. Can we use a form of reasoning to get from these particularities to a more general explanation of the causes of civil wars? And how might we try to use such an explanation to predict the course of future conflicts? To what extent are these things what history is actually about?
Or let's switch to geography to make a similar set of questions? When we understand the nature of food production in different countries and parts of the world, can we use this knowledge somehow to generate broader explanations? How effective are these explanations likely to be when dispensing advice or making policy decisions for the future in a particular country?
In economics, what explanations underpin the decisions governments make with regard to fiscal, monetary, income, supply-side policies? How effective are some of these policies in practice? What are some of the predictions that economists make regarding the implementation of policy?
what Cyanide is saying is true that“Natural sciences perhaps to be able to explain is to predict.”
But, what about in mathematics?
I think to be able to explain in math is to be able to proof and justify using mathematical languages… I will try to explain more when we tall about math.
l dnt think to explain is to be able to predict. a gd explanation cn just give one a gd understandin' like in history, evenif u get a gd understandin' after a gd explanation, u cnt predict the future bt in cases like economics,a gd explanation of the data at hand, cn help one predict smth out of the data. so in my view, explainin' is nt always to be able to predict.
To explain is to make a point clear and understandable, in terms of its definition, explaining is just making what is there comprehensible. I believe to be able to predict is to have the ability to foresee or even guess what may occur in the future.
The big difference between the two in my opinion is that explanations deal with the past and predictions deal with the future. Whether someone has the ability to predict because they can explain something, is too difficult too judge as being able to explain doesn't automatically mean someone can then predict the unforeseen.
However it is possible for someone with an understanding of the past e.g. the ability to explain, use his/her understanding to make a prediction for the future and I think good predictions come from a good understanding of the past. My answer to the question is that it is not true; having the knowledge or understanding of something e.g. the ability to explain does not translate into the ability to predict.
EF.
From what Mr. Kitching, Mr. Shadrack and everyone else has said, I deduce that explanation and prediction are only synonymous in areas of knowledge whose variables can be either kept constant, or reproduced to an extremely high level of accuracy. So in things like science where variables like temperature, volume, air pressure etc. can be controlled under lab conditions, then in fact one may say explanation may be prediction seeing as the object or event in question SHOULD act in the same way. This is provided that the event's factors are not beyond simulation by the present technology.
With more subjective areas of knowledge however, the conditions which caused a given events at a given time(t) cannot be reproduced with the level of accuracy of that of the sciences and mathematics. In a subject like history, the settings of the variables (feelings, economic state, FEAR) which were present in the world at that time CANNOT be reproduced to the level of accuracy that can be done in science for events that technology can simulate.
HOWEVER...
Until further notice (shout out to Mr. Kitching) I think that explanation does not mean prediction, even in the sciences. An example; in the famous two-slight experiment, waves are sent through two slits, and allowed to appear on a screen some distance away. When waves (e.g water waves) are passed through the slits, a pattern of intermittent low and high amplitudes is formed because of interference. We UNDERSTAND and can EXPLAIN why this happens- interference.
When normal particles like marbles are used, only a slit form appears on the screen.
However when electrons, which are just particles like marbles, are fired through two slits we see them create an image on the screen like waves. Why? We knew and could explain why waves and particles acted they way they did when passed through slits, respectively, but why couldn't we PREDICT the action of a another particle, the electron?
This is just to show that even in science we cannot predict EVERYTHING because we can explain it. We can explain the random appearance of particles in vacuum, but we cannot yet predict it. Much like we can explain radioactive decay, but we can't predict it can we! We can predict its half life, but as to when it starts decaying, we cannot predict.
So I think, if I have not been wrong in my reasoning, that explanation does not always mean prediction, but it entails an understanding of future, similar phenomena.
Good stuff, Vladimir!
I understand your point about the limitations of prediction here - concerning moving from marbles to sub-atomic particles. Nice example.
But when we get down to the level of the photon, doesn't the double-slit experiment (google this if you are not familiar with it, non-physicists) create a problem for explanation too? How can light be a particle and also a wave? How can this be an acceptable explanation for the nature and behaviour of light if it embraces what seems to be a contradiction?
Maybe here the findings of quantum physics leave behind the sorts of explanation that we would normally accept, and we (or at least physicists) are forced to operate at a mathematical level that "doesn't make sense" in terms of our everyday intuitions. Then again, can an explanation take a mathematical form...?
Well, this might be a promising area for physics students to explore, but there are also other possibilities for those not inclined in this direction...
Johnbosco,
Iv red ur male svrl tmes an hv dsided u m8 av a gud pnt.
But this is not the way to express your thoughts here. I think you have something worthwhile to say in your message, so let's have it in standard English.
i agree to the statement to a large extent.i think there is some situation which results in derivation of this statement.I wish i know it!!!
prediction of a situation should have an explanation behind it.in natural science,it is true that explanation and prediction walk hand in hand.But in social sciences explanation may lead to wrong prediction.the role if prediction in history,in my opinion,should be abandoned because it has always been wrong.
though i believe the statement holds truth i can see the problem of language.here we equate two words which have different dictionary meaning.for direct thinker this may obscure the real meaning it hold.
i think you can also be able to predict something even when you are unable to explain. Just that your
ability to explain increases ur chances of achieving a rational answer.
personally, i don't think to be able to explain is to predict, because when you explain something, you are not predicting the thing, you are just explaining what someone has already said or done and thus you don't come up with something new.....
Quick note...
It's great to see all these contributions building up. However, some of them are only OPINIONS, which is OK because everyone is entitled to that, but it's really important to include support - by providing either an EXAMPLE to show what you mean or an ARGUMENT to back it up. Otherwise, it's... well... just your opinion and we have no obligation to consider it further. I hope everyone understands my point here.
To explain is to be able to predict is relatively true. In mathematics, the answers and formulas are explained through functions therefore one can predict things. In a human science like geography and economics, though one might be able to explain happenings or events, no one can give a 100% correct prediction to them. That is why theories exist and are used as guidelines for assumptions to be made. In history, historians might have been able to explain happenings, but that does not mean that they could predict probably the causes of a similar event happening now.
So I think that it is not always when you can explain that you can also predict.
To explain is to be able to prdeict...hmm this statement is rather rather
In the Natural Sciences with the understanding of some concepts, it is actually possible to make predictions this is because as someone noticed earlier there are variables which can be taken into account before a prediction is made.
However with the human sciences and history which are largely based on human beings, there are so many more variables introduced because humans have emotions which cause us to be inconsistent and always varying. In economics for instance, one can predict that there will be a recession but one can't predict what exactly will cause the recession.
Similarly, in history it's possible to use knowledge of previous similar situations to make some kind of prediction. For instance, based on the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles as well as knowledge of German pride in their army it was obvious that the Germans would retaliate . But the problem with predictions in history is that the psychological setting is never the same, something that would have caused a war in the 1930s would not cause a war in the 21st century...
Well I think...
that in certain areas of the knowledge such as the human sciences, explanation is based almost solely on predictions. Take demand and supply in economics for example, human beings who are actually quite unpredictable are predicted in order to come up with theories. From studying the average human being, the economist has come up with the theory that when the price of a good on the market is low, the demand for that good will be high. This theory however creates an exception with Veblen goods which create the extreme opposite where increase in price increases demand.
But being and eccentric person, one may prefer to buy goods which are highly priced than those which are "normally" priced for different reasons! even if they are not Veblen goods!
Then the issue of moral and ethics come up where one can raise the issue that to do such a thing is just a waste, and ostentatious living!
To explain therefore to some extent requires prediction in order to form a basis of one's theory!
i think that explanation and prediction are in two related and somewhat different fields. when you explain, it means that you totally understand a certain idea, and can thus communicate it efectively to others. however prediction has to do with making patterns from acquired knowledge andusing those patterns to make a reasonable guess as to what could happen in the future. they are related in the sense that, once you understand something, you can explain it to others and also predict how the idea or concept you have could when applied to another situation change.in my Biology lesson yesterday for example, we carried out an experiment. we knew very little about the fungi and monosaccharides we used, but after working with them and gaining some understanding and knowledge from the experiment, we were able to predict what would happen(metabolises or no metabolises)to other monosaccharides if they were combined with the same yeast and explain why we thought so. thus understanding the concept, and explaining the concept, enabled us to make reasonable predictions as to what would happen to other similar monosaccharides.thus to explain is to predict was true in this case. but explaining and predicting are two different fields. thus if there is understanding, then to explain is to predict, but if there isnt, then that would not be possible.
To explain means to tell someone about something in a way that is clear or easy to understand and to predict is to make a statement about what you think is going to happen or the act of making this statement. In my opinion, i think it is true in the sense that predictions are made from the observation of a particular trend. If this trend can be explained then the prediction can be made successfully.
Thanks......
in explaining you make known something,in making a prediction, you make a statement about something that MIGHT happen in the future. You can base your predictions by making known something(explaining). For example you in math you can predict the shape a curve will take because you have seen similar functions which produce a similar curve. in economics you cannot explain why somethings happen but in predicting you make some assumptions which restrict your prediction therefore making your explanation right. to some extent to explain is to be able to predict but there are some limitations in some areas.
I agree with Takyi....that's my point. If a certain phenomenon can be explained, then we can go a step further to predict its behavior in other situations. Take consumer behaviour in economics for example, if demand increases with a decrease price, economists explain it in terms of the real income of consumers. In this sense, they can then predict that demand would also decrease with an increase in price. Not so?
A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur. I agree to a large extent that to explain is to be able to predict. This is because obviously you cannot make statements without reasons or backup statements to explain yourself and make your point clearer. As we learnt in the four walls of the TOK class, in the natural sciences we draw up hypothesis which are more or less predictions. In these predictions we always attach some support for them in order to make our claims or predictions justifiable. For example, before an experiment we make known the nature of results we expect and through some chronological and meaningful statements which justify why we expect those results. Therefore to explain is to be able to predict, even though some in some situations we can make some claims without evidence or justifiable reasons. This is seen mostly in religion where faith plays a greater role rather than justification for one's claims but i will not go further since the issue of religion is a controversial one and i am sure Mr. Amo Mensah will agree to this....
well, i believe it is really different because to explain means to be able to explain a certain senario well.Where as to predict is to be able to give a scientific effect in the future based on the explained situation.Hence to be able to explain doesnot neccaserly mean to be able to predict.
well,i think in here we have two terms explain-is to be able reason out the facts,agreements and laws behind scientific theories.whereas to predict-is to be able to forecast based on the results and the scientific modeling we used.so, if we look at the keywords of the question,it includes two different scientific processes(procedures).therefore we can deduce that to explain is does not mean that u are always able to predict something.
I think that to "explain is to be able to predict" depends on the situation. A perfect example is economics..economics as a social science explains human behaviour and thus can predict how it expects a human to behave in a certain sittuation.
However predictions can be made without the need to explain.
I think that the two words stand for for two very different things. To predict is to tell about in advance, to prophesy. To explain is to make something clear and intelligable.Predictions can be made without any logical explanation. I think that predictions are more like sense perception but explanations are more of reasoning.The two concepts are completely different
it is somehow true that for u to predict u should be able to explain your predictions (everything should have some base of some sort).
we shud b able to justify our claims through reasonable explanations. if a prediction is not backed with an explanation then it is "useless".
therefore it is reasonable(true) to say that the ablility to explain shud give u some confidence to predict
I think that if you can explain something, then you can be able to predict because when you can explain something then you can make a pattern which can help in your predictions. For example, in biology if you can explain how an enzyme works then you can predict how it will behave when it is exposed to different conditions like temperature and pH. Maybe it might be the case for the natural sciences and not something like the human sciences where the result that will be obtained are based on assumptions and are unpredictable.
To a large extent, i think it is true that to explain is to be able to predict. having the ability to explain a concept or some other thing indicates that one has great understanding in his or her field of study and hence can make predictions. for example, Mendeleev had great understanding in chemistry, particularly, that of the properties and characteristics of the various elements. based on the great understanding he had of these elements he was able to explain why he placed the elements in groups and periods.in addition, he was able to predict some elements based on his explanations. i believe there are very few instances where predictions have been made without explanations.
I think that the question posed would have been more interesting if it had been framed a bit differently to read- To predict is to be able to explain. Is this true?
In making predictions, one has to observe something over a sufficient period of time to find a trend in the observed, then from these repeating patterns one can come up with a sequence in occurrences and from this, a prediction. Therefore there has to be a reasonable explanation for someone to make a good prediction. You cannot just make a blank prediction. You have to support it with enough evidence as to why you think it would happen. That is why some people can rely on the weather forecast because they have good reason to make predictions by looking for trends in the weather to tell how it will be in the future, which explains why they are right most of the time.
My answer to the question therefore is that to explain is not necessarily to be able to predict, but to predict is to be able to explain.
I agree with the assertion to explain is to be able to predict, simply because of a basic example I would like you all to think about. Most of my colleagues have cited the example with economics, considering the credit crunch, if economists can explain the effects they can predict that it will affect Africa negatively; The global downturn has undermined demand for many industrial commodities, which are important exports for several African countries. If the economy of the foreign countries continues to deteriorate amount demanded from Africa would decrease meaning less national income coming into system from foreign countries: recession, unemployment. I have explained the effect of the credit crunch on Africa and predicted there would probably be a recession.
Meanie said:
"Predictions can be made without any logical explanation."
This prompts a subsidiary question, which is:
Is there a difference between predicting and guessing?
The answer to this might help...
This comment is being posted on behalf of Siphatisiwe,
My Response
I think that explanation and prediction go hand in hand when it comes to the natural sciences. For example, in chemistry and biology when one is familiar with kinetics they will definately know that in a particular reaction, when the temperature is increased, then the rate of the reaction will also be faster. In this case you will have explained the concept and predicted a somewhat correct outcome without really having to do the experiment. However in the human sciences especially in economics it is harder to explain and predict although it is always done. This is because human sciences study human behaviour which can never be static, but is rather always almost unpredictable. For instance, one can predict human behaviour based on the explanation that when prices fall demand will increase which is not always the case because someone might decide not to buy because they do not want to be seen buying something cheap. The other thing that makes predictions in the human sciences difficult is the fact that thier foundation is based on assumptions unlike that of the natural sciences whose foundation is made up of experimental evidence, facts and approved thoeries
to explain is to be able to predict. i do believe this is true in a sense.
As human beings, we often have reasons and explanations to support our views or ideas.
From this reasoning, we are able to acquire suitable information in explaining whatever prediction we have at hand.
i think this narrows my view down to the fact that...
in order to make predictions OR to predict, we need to be able to explain our predictions for them to be justified...
most of the time
=)
i would like to contribute more this as i dont feel completely justified in my response. predictions are based on foretelling. more or less using the present to arriive at the future and this predictions are used in subject ares like quantum physics where scientists make predictions based on probability. also in mathematics, models are based on predictions or functions and describe the behaviour of something and use the information they have to predict the future. shout outs to mr Faraday! where we can estimate the number of beetles for the next 3 years if they double every month. (or we think they do). somehow, to large extent, we explain what is past and predict the future. ( i hope this makes sense) explanations often hold some sort of conviction if i am right. and prediction hold more doubts than certainty.
also, to comment on mr kitching's question about predicting and guessing, i think that guessing is arriving at conclusions without sufficient evidence while predictions are more of foretellings, as if one is saying with a bit of conviction that if a and b happens, c will happen. it is not definite, but it is more solid. they have underlying similarities but are quite different.
I agree with Kamau_i....however some facts in human sciences can be backed by evidence from natural sciences. For example in Geography we use the DTM , a model that shows patterns of development in relation to birth and death rates. Geographers explain these patterns using facts that we can admit are "true" like thae fact that lack of good sanitation increases the risk of death...Biology could be used to back this point because we know that in a dirty environment people are more likely to be exposed to deadly bacteria in the atmosphere therefore explaining the high death rates...So what I am trying to get across is that even though humans are not predictable it is not every aspect of our existence that cannot be explained and justified. With these explanations, such as why the pattern of the DTM is as it is, we can go on to predict using prior knowledge of how things work. So I would say that to explain is not to predict but rather that solid explanations may lead to better predictions.
I do not think that to give an explanation to an event or occurance means that you have the ability to give a prediction to any event or occurance. Explanation means to give meaning to an occurance but a prediction is to foretell an event or circumstance that in most cases has not been seen or observed before based on a persons understanding and knowledge.
From these two definitions, it is safe to say that explaining adds meaning to a known fact or phenomena while prediction provides a new and original, though not proven, meaning to either a known event or an unknown event.
To support this fact, I use the discovery of particles in Vacuum. Many predictions had been made about what vacuum is. But a scientist(forgotten the name) carried out experiments to come out with the truth and he interpreted the results he obtained to prove that vacuum contains particles and this new observation was then explained to the rest of the world
To explain shows one has some knowledge of why something is the way it is but to predict involves a further knowledge to the explanation. If someone understands theories, that person may be able to predict what will happen when experiments are put in place to test the theory. For instance, in chemistry,if one understands the atomic theory, that person may be able to predict what will happen when certain atoms react.
to explain is to be able to paraphrase a given with adequate understanding of a given idea. to describe is just to express and idea.expression based on our what we observe only focusing on a given idea. whiles to explain is to give detail information about a given idea. it can be based on our experience in life or knowledge we get from any other place. Therefore, i do believe that explanation and description are two different and independent ideas.explain is to mean relate the given idea with your knowledge from your experience.
To explain is to be able to predict. Is this true?
I think it depends on what we are trying to explain.
In IB science, when we are asked to explain, we are suupposed to
"Give a detailed account of causes,reasons and mechansisms".
What causes something to happen? What is the reason?
How does something narmally work?
I think when we are talking about general causes, reasons and
mechanism, we are talking about the pattern of what's happening.
For example, if we can explain the principle/mechanism of evolution,
we can somehow predict the bacterial resistance to certain antibiotics.
This is true to some extent even in certain human sciences.
But, i am less confident about the idea in history.
If we can explain why, what happened in the past, does that mean
we can predict something about the future or what's happening now?
People say we learn from past and that is the reason why we study history.
Then, it might be possible for us to predict something out of history.
But,it would be a wild guess. I guess. Because what happened in the past is
a complex combination of individuals' behaviour and we don't have the same people
right now. People are variable with all other things being variable.
So, what am i talking about now? I think I am talking about variables.
Variables in natural science are more controllable and manageable than those in human
science. And theories and laws in science are built using these varibles through certain
experiments.
What i want to say is Laws and theories in natural science are more concrete than ones in
human science and patterns found in natural science is more distinct.
In general, to expain is to be able to predict but it seems like capacity to explain does
not give rise to same level of accurate prediction in various area of knowledge.
firstly explaining and predicting are two different terms that can be related in a small way.Explaining put simply is clarifying something whilst predicting is like fore telling the future.One can be able to explain something yet fail to predict.It is also important to note that not everything in this world is predictable but it can be said that almost everything in this world is likely to be explainable hence I think that it is not true to say that to explain is to be able to predict.
I agree with the statement, taking this to a particular area of " the natural sciences" , if you look at the history of science reasearch &observation,things that were observed were mainly explain through their pridiction of what the case could be.which a lot of scientist did...& and also i depends on what you are trying to explain.
I think that to predict and to explain are two different things but are however related in someway. In explanation, the person explaining is always right because in order to explain, one must have an accurate understanding of what one is explaining. However, in predicting, the person may sometimes be wrong. In addition, i think people use explanations to justify their predictions but even in this case, the person may still be wrong. But the statement to explain is to be able to predict, can be correct in some cases as if the person can explain and hence have a good understanding of what is being explained, the person can then use this information to predict certain things related/concerning to it.
I entirely agree with Chris.....basically a prediction is a form of educated guess so it could be wrong.Also to explain something "in the classroom" you don't know you just "guess". So i think these two words are inter-related.
i do believe that explanation and prediction are different things but it doesn't mean that, their is no relation between this two big words.mostly we explain things around us and this explanation helps us to predict the future.in this case our prediction is to the large extent certain and goes with our explanation.however,in human science prediction is hard since we, human being are dynamic.therfore explaning is justifing the exsting fact not predicting.
a strong expalanation arose from a deep understanding and experimenting facts.so people can justify thier prediction using knowledge and experimentation.
In my opinion, an explanation involves a deep comprehension of an event, action, process,etc, so as to inform others of the basis for its existence, action or occurence. An explanation does not necessarily require the ability to predict as actions and occurences are more often than not spontaneous. On April 16 2007, Cho Seung-Hui, a student at Virginia Tech opened fire at students and teachers leaving 33 people DEEEEAAADDD!!!! According to investigators his actions were a result of academic stress and a weak social life. In such an instance, can we predict when again this action will occur? An explanation does not necessarily require or allow for a prediction.
Moneeeeeeeeeyyyyy!
The statement is an interesting one and I think that in different situations and in different areas of knowledge it can be true.
There is a saying that History often repeats itself and that is in fact the only thing we learn from it and that History is a lamp of experience guiding us in the present. In that regard explaining why some phenomenon occurred say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or say the outbreak of World War can be used to predict whether given certain of the explained causes such phenomenon are likely to occur or not. So there were many historians and politicians who prior to World War two predicted its outbreak by explaining why World War One broke out and drawing parallels. However in the same area of knowledge this statement can often be found to be untrue. This is due to the unpredictability of Humans. To explain why a human took a decision cannot serve always serve as a valid premise to form a prediction.
In the Natural sciences however, I feel to be able to explain various phenomenon will allow one to form a prediction. By explaining the things that we see, for example explaining how light behaves we can form predictions as to how light will behave in different situations.
Well,to a large extent I think that predictions and an explanation tend to go hand in hand: patterns are observed and predictions are made backed by an explanation that has justification from the pattern. One tends to lead to the other. Thus more often than not, when you can explain a concept or a characteristic or a state of something you can usually make a prediction about it.
Yet I doubt that in all circumstances you can predict if you can explain. I think that mostly within the human sciences the premise that to explain is to be able to predict holds.
For the purposes of this question i will assume that predict as used in the question means predict correctly.
I think that being able to explain something does not necessarily imply that you can make a prediction. I say this because i have been able to explain de moivre's theorem to many people but i still haven't been able to make a prediction as to what exactly it may be applied to or what else it would imply. However, when i explain to people that following a particular pattern, for example in the sequence 3,5,7..., that the general term is 2n+1, i have in fact made a prediction and this arguably could be attributed to the fact that i was able to explain it to the person. (This prediction is not necessarily true because one could argue that the sequence is just listing the odd primes)
Now, taking the question from the angle that something has occured and i am able to give reasons at why it happened that way. For example if i am able to explain why NDC won the 2008 Ghanaian Election,it doesn't necessarily mean that i can predict who will win the next election(although i have a fair idea).
Indeed, i would first like to commend my fellow students on the isightful comments they have been making. In my oppinion (sorry Mr.Kitching) explanation and predictability are only somtimes synonymous. there is an old adage that says that "one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history". Apart from the comical irony, i think that saying is truly significant to this question (especially in History as an area of knowledge). Just because we can explain certain pastt events based on hindsight, it does not mean that we can automatically or precisely predict the future. If this was the case then there would probably be no more wars.
i somewhat disagree with the statement because
explanations rely on predictions... without predictions there can not be any explanations..(well.. thats what i think it might be true or not)..
I post this on behalf of Dorothy!
l think it depends with the situation, because in the natural sciences explanation comes first before predictions but in human sciences such as geography in weather forecasting predictions come first before giving an explanation of your reasoning.
Guessing is mostly by chance it’s not based on any premises whatsoever but predictions are derived from a premise which however does not mean the prediction will be correct or wrong
ON BEHALF OF MAAME ADU-KOFI
To explain is to be able to predict. Is this true?
Like most people have already pasted, when you are able to explain something, you understand waht you are talking about so you are able to critically analyse the issue at hand.
Predictions are most commonly made in the natural sciences when scientist are performing experiments. If thees scientist do not understand what they are investigating, it is impossible to make any prediction (provide a hypothesis) or even explain the outcomes of the investigation to anyone.
Therefore explanation goes hand in hand with predictions provided you have understanding or some base knowledge on the issue.
I just wanted to add that, if you cannot explain then you would not be able to predict but only make a GUESS meanin you have less fore knowledge on the issue.
Explanations and predictions are true but there is some limitation as to how fr explanation of some phenomena can take us. In the sciences which readily come to mind, sufficient and relevant data is a phrase being thrown at us day in day out and it seems like it is for this very same reason because being able to explain certain things may prove predictions true but others false for example in the social sciences. If one can predict a trend for 4 members of a group of about 20 be it a group of alkenes or people does not necessarily mean the prediction drawn out may hold for all others, however, in the sciences this usually proves true most of the time thought there exist some exceptions so i guess it all boils down to the area of knowledge and the basis with which the judgement is being made
Predication and explanation are not synonymous but they are linked in that predication brings about an explanation. However even though the two words are connected they are not precise and this is because of the gap that exists between them and this gap is covered by an experiment. The first thing we do when investigating something is to observe the patterns in our observation through sense perception and our preconceived knowledge and from there we formulate a prediction. A prediction is followed by an experiment and after we justify our prediction by explaining the outcomes
Well,in defining predict as fortelling a happening and defining explain as giving an interpretation, I would say that explaining is not predicting. In looking at two differnt areas of knowledge; mathematics and human science, examples from both support thos point. In chemistry, the creation of the periodic table is a good example. In its creation and arranging of elements, explanations were given to why the elemnts found at the start of its creation behaved the way they did; probably looking at atomic mass, atomic radii, and elactron arrangements. In giving expalnations to their behaviours predictions were made on where other elements later found will fall based on the previous expalnation given.In mathematics, when giving a mathematical expalnation as to why one equation will be equal to another using proof by induction, predictions are able to be made on how related equation would be like. I therefore think that, to expalin is not to predict, though in expalining, predictions are able to be made for other systems which have not yet been observed but similar of related to the one expalnations have to given to.
I think t is to explain something is to make it clear and easy understand by either describing it or giving information about it and i think to predict is to say that something is going to happen in the future. Therefore, from my understanding, i dont think predicting is the same as explaining but i however think there is a relation between, that is, an explanation can be used to support a prediction. For example,two economists predicted the US credit crunch and they gave detailed explanations for their predictions which made it believable.
Well, now look at the way we can start to anchor our contributions in real life.
I started by offering something on:
• Evolution by natural selection
• Newton's law of universal gravitation
• Various civil wars
• Food production
• Government economic policies
And then you brought in (so far, and apologies for any omissions):
• Young's double slit experiment
• The Versailles treaty
• Price and consumer demand
• Metabolism of sugars by yeast
• Mathematical functions
• Enzyme action
• The periodic table
• Weather forecasting
• The credit crunch
• The DTM model in geography
• Vacuum and QED
• Atomic theory
• Bacterial resistance
• The Virginia Tech shootings
• Mathematical sequences
While some of these could do with further specification (which?), this is a huge advance on talking in a "hand-waving" airy-fairy sort of way.
Now if we can situate examples such as these within strong logical arguments, then we are most of the way toward producing some top-class written work in TOK...
well! i realized that to be able to explain can not be able to predict.explain is to give detail information about the idea.but i can see that if i give detail information how can my detail information be something that don't exist(what we are expected to forecast).sometimes in natural science subjects we may be asked to explain about a certain area of knowledge, but quite different from prediction. for instance, if we are asked to about DNA replication, then we just relate the question with what we know. we are supposed to paraphrase how DNA can be replicated, but not to predict how DNA will replicate.
This question assumes that explanation is forward-looking. I don't think is necessarily true (or that it should be true). This is evidenced by the many retrospective analyses of historical events which don't make predictions of any kinds.
Post a Comment