TBoI I: The Reach Of Explanations

Back to the Beginning of David Deutch's 'The Beginning of Infinity' (TBoF) (page #'s are hardcover.. I don't know if there is another edition yet)

p. 3

"One of the most remarkable things about science is the contrast between the enormous reach and power of our best theories and the precarious, local means by which we create them."

"Scientific theories are explanations: assertions about what is out there and how it behaves."

I think we can improve on this definition of explanation. I often find the clarity lacking a bit. Even where he supplies end of chapter definitions, they are often vague (and the 'Meanings of TBOF...' sections can be downright silly). One my of critiques of the book in general is it doesn't seem to know who its audience is... it tries to be part formal philosophical treatise and part pop-sci.

p 6.

"Scientific explanations are about reality, most of which does not consist of anyone's experiences."

p. 7

"Discovering a new explanation is inherently an act of creativity."

p. 8

"...the real key to science is that our explanatory  theories ... can be improved, through conjecture, criticism, and testing."

Directly from Popper, and pretty hard to refute (ahem).

p. 10

"All observations arre, as Popper put it, theory-laden"

The remainder of the paragraph rather stretches what we would call 'theory' to include even basic sensory processing and modeling... but it's a valid point nonetheless.

p. 13

"What was needed for the sustained, rapid growth of knowledge was a tradition of criticism."

p. 22

"If an explanation could easily explain anything... than it actually explains nothing."

"In general, when theories are easily variable... experimental testing is almost useless for correcting these errors. I call such theories bad explanations."

"The quest for good explanations is... the basic regulating principle not only for science, but of the Enlightenment... and it implies all those other conditions for scientific progress."

p. 25

"We do not test every testable theory, but only the few we find are good explanations."

Well, he puts forward his idea of a good explanation, a key part of which is that it is difficult to vary, as more important than the concept of testability or falsifiability, but being hard to vary is exactly the property that makes a theory falsifiable, so it amounts to the same thing.

It seems his use of explanation is largely interchangeable with the scientific use of the word theory (sometimes he uses the term explanatory theories), but he is probably smart to prefer the former for greater specificity.

Edit: just came across the same phrase in Popper: "Assume that we have deliberately made it our task to line in this unknown world... and to explain it... with the help of laws and explanatory theories."

p. 26

"The best explanations are the ones that are most constrained by existing knowledge... including other good explanations"

p. 28

"The reach of explanations is... the ability to solve problems beyond those that they were created to solve... it it determined by the content of the explanation itself"

p. 30

"if you find an explanation anywhere in the universe, you know that there must have been an intelligent being."

I don't find much to debate in this chapter; he introduces some lingo and sets the stage. I can't argue with the Popperian epistemology. One thing I noted from the start is DD doesn't quite seem to know who is audience is. It seems part formal treatise on the philosophy of science, part pop-sci. He includes end of chapter definitions, but they are often pretty vague, which kind of defeats the purpose of a definition. And the 'Meanings of...' sections are usually pretty silly.

I can't wait 'til we get to Hilbert's Hotel :D But, I am finding a re-read valuable;