Center for Analysis and Design of Intelligent Agents

Philosophy of Science III

Theory (Icel. kenning)	“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
Theory: The coherent story	The ability of individuals and groups to create “coherent stories” of how phenomena in the world are connected and produce rigorous models that support the stories is a necessary condition for scientific progress.
Theories	Explains the connections between things in the world
Hypothesis (Icel. tilgáta)	A prediction about the relationship between a limited set of phenomena, as explained by a particular theory.
Support from evidence	The strongest form of evidence is rigorous hypothesis testing using scientific experimentation: clearly thought-out tests of the claims that naturally fall out of the Theory to be tested. It helps if the hypotheses concern unexpected results.

	Empirical	Mathematical	Philosophical
Key Focus / Topic	physical universe	numbers, sizes, numeric relations	anything and everything
Key Method of Investigation	comparative experiment	logic, calculation, computation	human reasoning and insight
Main Discourse Method	journals, conferences, books	journals, conferences, books	journals, conferences, books
Absolute Certainty	attempted, not attainable in principle	attainable	not attempted, not attainable in principle
Result Certainty	attempted through quality experimental design and execution	achieved through correct application of deduction on axioms	not attempted
Result Generality	attempted through internal and external validity of experiments	attained through proof	attempted through human reasoning
Key Driving Force	human creativity and ingenuity	human creativity and ingenuity	human creativity and ingenuity
Key Enabling Underlying Principle	the world is logical	the world is logical	the world is logical

	Empirical	Mathematical	Philosophical
from Empirical to	-	no mathematics cannot get support from empirical methods because the former is axiomatic (what experiment would support that 2+2=4?)	yes empirical results can limit and focus philosophical investigations
from Mathematics to	yes via modeling	-	yes mathematical arguments can limit and focus philosophical investigations
from Philosophy to	yes a fundamental function of philosophy is to inform and guide empirical investigation	yes philosophy informs and guides mathematics	-

	UI / UX	Data Science	Info Networks	Simulation
Example Researcher	Marta Lárusdóttir	Markus Scheidl	Magnús Már Halldórsson	Joanna Bryson
Example Focus	relevance & effectiveness of methods	predicting user preferences	building better wireless networks	understanding behavior of groups
Key Methodology Type	empirical	empirical	mathematical	simulation
Key Investigation Methods	Observations (e.g. think-aloud testing), interviews, questionnaires and experiments	massive data analysis, statistics	network analysis, modeling	modeling and simulation
Whose Behavior is Studied?	individuals, end-users	individuals, end-users, groups	algorithms, hardware	groups, societies
Fields With Comparable Features	psychological research	disaster management	formal modeling and verification	economics

Where theories come from	Scientific theories almost never “pop out” complete and finished. They get assembled piece by piece, until there are so few pieces left that someone figures out a full picture - a complete story to be told, explaining the phenomena at hand.
Scientific theories: Always evolving	Although scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge there is, most scientific theories (the best ones for any given topic) at any point in time are theories in flux in that they are actively being put to the test.
Scientific Progress	Progress in science follows a starts-and-stop pattern; when there is a relatively complete outer framework “filling in” of missing information can be done (e.g. figuring out the many mechanisms at work within cells) in relatively smooth progression, but when a framework is missing not much happens until someone produces a theoretical framework that provides a more complete picture (e.g. the gap in understanding mental phenomena and neural behavior).

“Observable”	Philosopher: what you can observe with your senses. Scientist: what you can measure
“Non-observable”	hypothetical concept (that may become observable at some point, in the scientists sense).
Empirical laws	Rule that relate two or more observables. Example: Color wheel artithmetic - yellow+blue=green.
Theoretical laws	Rules that deal with non-observables.
Rule ←→ law	Law: Rule that has become established (through experiment).
Empirical laws ←→ facts	Empirical laws relate facts about observables.
Empirical law ←→ Theoretical law	Similar to empirical ←→ facts relation.
Theoretical example	The concept of “atom” would never arise out of observation.
Empirical example	The concept of the “heat expands metal” can be measured on observables.
Theoretical laws produce empirical laws	E.g. Theory of Relativity predicts bent light in gravitational fields.
Correspondence rules	Relate theoretical laws with empirical laws and observables.

The Big Question	Will science ever be “finished”? Will it ever have explained reality to such an extent as we can say “we now have a complete theoretical framework where every theory has been unified (explainable in a single overall theory), everything is understood and everything can be predicted.”
Answer 1	It will not finish because, at the current speed of scientific inquiry, the human race will perish before all things in the universe have been fitted into a complete model/Theory of All.
Answer 2	It is already “finished”, in that its uncovering of big theories is slowing down, inevitably - for all practical purposes - grinding to a halt in the next 100 years.
Answer 3	We will build intelligent machines that can do science at 10k times the speed of humans. Hence we might be done with theoretizing the universe within humanities timeframe.

EOF