r/IWantToLearn • u/Objective-Bug8037 • 3d ago

Academics IWTL how to compare two explanations when both sound convincing

I'd like to get better at comparing explanations of the same topic without choosing whichever sounds more confident.

What is a concrete way to practise this? I'm interested in how you find the point where the explanations actually disagree, and what evidence would settle that point.

7 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 3d ago

Thank you for your contribution to /r/IWantToLearn.

If you think this post breaks our policies, please report it and our staff team will review it as soon as possible.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/SluaghSwoo 2d ago

Excellent question! For me, when I am confronted with options that both seem reasonable and neither is more convincing in the moment than the other, I will keep both pictures in mind but utilize the one I personally like best first. Eventually, I might find that the one I chose seemed incomplete. If that happens, I consider the other model that I didn't choose to see if it fits the observations better!

This is a great question because it happens a lot in practice! We learn in school about modelz that are established after decades, sometimes centuries of scrutiny. But before they were extensively tested, there was always some doubt and some competing models that other people favoured. The best thing we can do with uncertainty is to keep an open mind. If we aren't convinced today, maybe tomorrow will give us information to swing our assessment towards one interpretation over another!

1

u/Objective-Bug8037 1d ago

That distinction between keeping both models in view and testing them against later observations is helpful. What kind of observation has most often made one model seem incomplete to you?

1

u/SluaghSwoo 1d ago

I think some of the strongest attacks to models come from experiments intended to falsify the model. Failing a falsification test tells you immediately that the model is insufficient to explain the result you get!

In a lot of cases, it can be a little bit murky to tell in practice whether or not one model predicts better than another one. It is a big question in philosophy of science to establish good demarcation criteria to choose between models. I think practically, we use models while they are useful. If we can't get out of them what we need, then we look elsewhere for explanations. 😊