Is Explanation a Prerequisite for Prediction? Explore this question in relation to two areas of knowledge. Prerequisite is best described as something that is required as a prior condition. In this case, it is whether explanation, described as a reason or justification given for an action, belief, dynamic or phenomena is considered a prerequisite for prediction; which is an assertion of a future state, sequence of events, or emerging dynamic. This paper will seek to answer this question through two areas of knowledge; Human and Natural Sciences arguing that depending on specific cases, it is apparent that for certain predictions an explanation is necessary, while for others it is not. A major knowledge question this raises is, to what extent does one need to be able to explain phenomena in the Natural Sciences before we can make predictions about how the world behaves? To make predictions about future climate, an understanding of causality is necessary. Organisations such as the IPCC have collected data about C02 emissions and increasing temperatures of the world and have created a link between the two to arrive at a prediction that links these two sets of information into creating a final prediction such as increase of CO2 emissions + Increasing Global temperatures = global warming (caused by CO2). However, in this case, the quality of prediction is hampered by an inadequate explanation of causality. Through a basic and analytical look into the data and other
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Consider the following example of how much information is acquired prior to a decision. Suppose upon entering a room one is unexpectedly confronted with the sight of a fully grown tiger. A fairly reliable prediction is that person would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch or otherwise seek safety. All by itself that prediction is uninteresting. More interesting is the explanation for the behavior. Would the person's decision to run be based upon any detailed information held about that particular or would the decision be based upon the person's information about how he has seen other tigers behave, what his parents have told him about tigers or tiger folklore? Most likely the individual's decision would be based upon the latter. He simply pre-judges or stereotypes the tiger. The fact that it is a tiger is deemed sufficient information for action.
According to Interpretivist, to understand the whole complexity of the world the simple fundamental laws that are used by positivist are not sufficient. They argue that the observing the intentional behaviour and actions of human beings is impossible.
Two assumptions bring the issue of explanation to the fore. One of these pertains to the range and the other to the type of event that the theories are adduced to account for. The merits of the theory theory and the simulation theory are usually discussed in relation to the practice of the prediction of intentional behavior. The reasonable assumption, (assumption A), is that the mechanism that is deployed in prediction will be the same one that is deployed in the explanation, the description and the interpretation of our own and others’ behavior. The second assumption, (assumption B), is that the two theories offer competing accounts of the same sort of event. The theory theory and the simulation theory, in proposing alternative views of the mechanism underlying our folk psychological practices of prediction, explanation, etc., agree on what these practices consist in.
2. I believe that scientists can predict where a volcano is gonna erupt. Why? Because if there is a volcano, then some time it will erupt, but if there is no volcano in a certain area, then there will be no eruption. I also believe that scientists can predict when a volcano will erupt. They might not get the exact date, but get it very close. By examining the patterns near the volcano, they can try and pinpoint when it erupt next.
Once the idea that climate change was happening was more mainstream and not dismissed, another scientist picked up Fourier’s theory. He proposed the idea that carbon dioxide could be what was trapping the heat, and also that water vapor is good at trapping heat. Although, this did not explain why the Earth was so warm. The idea was again visited later on, but this time Svante Arrhenius discovered that a certain amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals a certain amount of warmth. This trend continued for years, scientists discovering new things about the atmosphere. How did the ice ages happen? How much carbon dioxide can the atmosphere handle? These were questions scientists have asked.
Over the last 30 years, there has been a wide research into the level of people’s awareness and the important factors that influence their judgments and decisions to give an explanation about their behavior. According to Bargh (2006), in contrast with the cognitive psychology tradition, this research has
Fritz Heider (1958) focuses on the internal and external attribution, which suggests why people behave a certain way according to their character or attitudes (external attribution) or the implication as to why an individual behaves a certain way due to the situation there in. “When we explain our own behavior, we are sensitive to how behavior changes with the situation” (Idson & Mischel, 2001). The significances of making a conclusion, gives direction and probability, which may help determine why a person may or may not act a certain way based on what the evidence shows. The implication of a certain behavior depends on the source to which it is attributed. For example: If Pat assumes that growing up isolated from her surroundings is normal, she won’t perceive it as non-normal. “The way we explain others’ actions, attributing them to the person or the situation, can have important real-life effects” (Fincham & Bradbury, 1993; Fletcher et., 1990). “A person must decide whether to attribute another’s friendliness to romantic interest “ (Myers, D. G.
Therefore, it can be asserted that knowledge gained from causality is not a priori, rather a posteriori, which is knowledge gained from experience and empirical evidence.
An objective theory that predicts future events can only be possible when dealing with the five senses. Once there is a pattern of the same things reoccurring over and over again, a universal law starts to develop. This means that no matter what, some things will always be true, while other things will always be false. One’s beliefs, whatever they may be, have no manner on the facts of the world. Some facts of the world include the sun rising, women being able to carry a baby, and even evolution. Another example is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which describes that when interacting with people, one may need certain information about the person in order to reduce their uncertainty. In the event that one does gain more information about the other person or
It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.
The planet has been experiencing considerable climate change for the last several decades. There have been many explanations toward the main causes of the increased warming of the planet. On one hand are the environmentalists who believe that the major cause of this increased warming of the planet is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere induced by human activities. On the other hand, the scientists believe that there are natural causes of global climate change. While the supporters of the man-made theory of global climate change reason that the major greenhouse gas causing global warming is carbon dioxide, the advocates of natural causes
In the last 100 years, Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F. The rising global temperatures have caused changes in weather and climate. Global warming refers to the ongoing rise in the average temperature near Earth’s surface. This is causing a climate change, which refers to any significant change (major change in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time (several decades or longer). Due to this, it is projected that the temperature will rise from 2 to 11.5°F in the next hundred years (US EPA, 2014). The “drivers,” which are the principal causes making this occur, are very controversial. It is debated whether a change in temperature is due to the work of
One of the most all time debated and controversial topics to date in science is global warming. Over the last few decades climate change have lead scientist to develop a theories that human beings are the major contributors to the global warming crisis. Many theories suggest that different types of issues contribute to the warming of the planet but the mitigation strategies to slow this process down vary as well.
– Predict the value of a dependent variable based on the value of at least one independent variable – Explain the impact of changes in an independent variable on the dependent variable