Explanation in Science
From “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Choosing a Biological Science of Choice” by Paul Glimcher:
‘In the 1650s, Blaise Pascal puzzled over one of the most complicated decisions faced by enlightenment philosophers: “Either God is or he isn’t”, he wrote, “But to which view shall we be inclined?” Pascal took what was then a completely novel approach to this problem, arguing we should “weigh up the gain and loss involved in calling heads that God exists” or tails that he does now (Pascal, 1670).
‘Over the ensuing three centuries, Pascal’s notation that gain and uncertainty must interact whenever rational decision making occurs has become the foundation for rigorous analysis of human choice behavior. Modern economic theory rests almost entirely upon this idea’
One thing I’ve been thinking about is explanations in science. Recall the learned fools, asked what made the King so sleepy, who postulated a “sopoforic factor”. They failed because they did not explain one thing in terms of other stuff, they just delayed the explanation. I think by definition, explanations must transmute one type of stuff into another. And this of course, becomes extremely difficult for people to handle when you explain that their feelings and thoughts are materialist in origin. Or that their belief in God comes from other decisions. So I have a new eye to evidence and explanations: if you think you’ve explained something and it looks like the explanation is made of the same stuff, you’re probably wrong.