Explanationism is the idea that prediction is, in itself, insufficient

Question

Explanationism is the idea that prediction is, in itself, insufficient to confirm a theory. To adequately confirm a theory, according to an explanationist, is to see how well it describes events and phenomena that have already been observed. Stephen Brush, a staunch explanationist, would say that a correct prediction does not necessarily confirm the truth of a theory; it could be the case that a theory predicts something and yet does not provide the best explanation of it. Take, for example, the difference in the perspectives of Copernicus and Brahe on the solar system. Copernicus’s model of the solar system was heliocentric, positing that all of the planets revolve around the sun. Brahe’s theory stated that all of the planets revolved around the sun, except the earth, which wasimmobile, and that the sun actually revolved around the earth. Even if both accurately predicted future movements of the planets, it is easy to see how Copernicus’s theory has less of an ‘ad hoc’ quality—and, of course, provides a superior explanation of the mechanisms of the solar system. It is certainly true that a theory can successfully predict a certain event, yet fail to provide an adequate explanation for why it happened, or perhaps even stumble on the prediction more by accident than by manner of understanding the mechanism behind the event.

A predictionist would argue that while a theory can provide a perfect explanation for something happening, a theory cannot be tested for understanding or explaining the underlying mechanism of a phenomenon unless it can also predict some event that confirms that exact mechanism at work. For instance, a physicist might study the formation of solids and posit that all solids will sink if they are placed in a liquid of the same element, because the solid is denser than the liquid. Given this premise, we discover that the physicist’s prediction is true, and even once he stages an experiment with ice and water, he will not be proven wrong, but rather will have discovered a unique property of solid water.

A predictionist would argue that while a theory can provide a perfect explanation for something happening, a theory cannot be tested for understanding or explaining the underlying mechanism of a phenomenon unless it can also predict some event that confirms that exact mechanism at work. For instance, a physicist might study the formation of solids and posit that all solids will sink if they are placed in a liquid of the same element, because the solid is denser than the liquid. Given this premise, we discover that the physicist’s prediction is true, and even once he stages an experiment with ice and water, he will not be proven wrong, but rather will have discovered a unique property of solid water.    1 
 1. Which of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

(A) Explanationism is a superior theory to predictionism.
(B) Two very different ideas can both be used to successfully investigate scientific theories.
(C) Copernicus’s model of the solar system was more accurate than Brahe’s due to explanationism.
(D) One cannot posit a physical theory without predictive power or previous observations.
(E) A predictionist and an explanationist will always diverge on whether a scientific theory is correct.

2 
 2. Which of the following most accurately states the author’s reason for citing the Copernicus and Brahe models of the solar system?

(A) It shows that a theory without predictive power can never be tested and verified.
(B) It reveals that some theories can have more or less of an ‘ad hoc’ quality.
(C) It shows that two different theories can never yield the same predictions for future events.
(D) It is used to support the idea that a more complicated model will always fail to a simpler model.
(E) It provides an example of when a theory can correctly predict future events but not offer the best explanation.

RC Butler 2023  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 135 Date: 05-May-2023
 This question is part of RC Butler 2023 .  Click here for Details

Manhattan GRE 5lb.

ANBARASI · Answer

Sir,
May I get the explanation of question no.1, why not (E)

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. Which of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

Explanation

The passage describes two different ideas,  explanationism  and  predictionism , that have both been used to verify or disprove different scientific theories. As for  (A) , the passage never states that either theory is superior to the other. Although  (C)  is true, the passage only mentions the two models of the solar system as an example of the workings of  explanationism . Therefore, it cannot be the main idea of the passage. Regarding  (D) , the passage does not describe what is required to posit a physical theory. As for  (E) , a  predictionist  and an  explanationist  will always diverge on how to prove that a scientific theory is true, but they might still agree on whether or not the theory is correct.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

2. Which of the following most accurately states the author’s reason for citing the Copernicus and Brahe models of the solar system?

Explanation

Before citing the example of the Copernicus and Brahe models of the universe, the author states,  it could be the case that a theory predicts something and yet does not provide the best explanation of it.  The author goes on to use Copernicus and Brahe as an example, stating that both of their theories have predictive power, but obviously Brahe’s does not offer the best explanation for the workings of the solar system. As for (A), the author is actually arguing the opposite: that predictive power alone is never enough to verify a theory.

(B)  does reveal that some theories have more or less of an ad-hoc quality, but this is not the author’s reason for citing this example. The main reason must be related back to explanationism. As for  (C) , the example showed the opposite — both theories were found to accurately predict future events, and thus they must have both made the same predictions for those future events. Although it is true that the more complicated model failed  (D) , the author’s intent was to show that an incorrect model can still make correct predictions.

Answer: E

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Explanationism is the idea that prediction is, in itself, insufficient

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Explanationism is the idea that prediction is, in itself, insufficient

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards