Theories of scientific progress based on replacement of explanations by better ones have to grapple with the unspecifiability of what makes one “better.” Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality, p. 93pic.twitter.com/YnpZtoEKqw
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I think Deutsch would want to say that the apparent incommensurability of the two theories constituted a “problem,” the solution to which was found in their eventual reconciliation. I’m not sure whether he’d invoke the “hard to vary” criterion here or not. https://bit.ly/2n4pyBa pic.twitter.com/0XzlZv4Nzq
This seems right (of course). What meta-scientific disciplines aim to do (or should aim to do imo) is to investigate more specifically how such trade-offs get worked out in practice, and how we might do that better. That’s where the substance of the question is!
Generally I would think the mechanistic explanation is harder to vary than mathematical model fitting. Which is why, though they merged, mechanistic is more fundamental. Today, we teach the mechanism of inheritance, then derive the math from that.
The mechanistic explanation has WAY more moving parts than the math of selection in population genetics. Molecular genetics is incredibly complicated, does vary considerably between organisms, and many details are still unclear.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.