英语论文网

• The principle of least effort (the laziness principle – which explanation is easier to use in practice)
• The principle of horizontal fit (how it fits with explanations of parallel related phenomena)
• The principal of vertical fit (how it fits with broader or more comprehensive or more fundamental theories in wider areas of human inquiry)
• The principle of elegance (or the principle of intuitive aesthetic fit).

5. Explanations and Relativity – should we be Worried?

If you consider the four dot points above you will notice that they have a degree of relativity about them which is concerning to some. The first one, the laziness one, makes a principle out of our desire for an easy life. Critics ask, why does the fact that something is easier make it more likely to be true? It does not of course. Remember however that the principle of laziness is not a test of truth, but one basis for choosing one explanation over another when they are both equally adequate to the apparent facts.

The second and third principles are explicitly relative, horizontally and vertically respectively. But this makes the test for which explanation to accept depend upon what else we accept. What if these other things turn out to be wrong? Well, we would have turned out to have made a very bad choice. Behind the second and third principles is another principle called the unity of science. (It could as well be called, indeed possibly more accurately, the principle of the unity of human knowledge.) This is the principle that all human knowledge must in the end form a totality which is comprehensive, consistent, and coherent. This is not an arbitrary principle, but is based on what is an objective assumption about the world – that this is a single world, and our emerging scientific (in a broad sense, encompassing natural and social) should mirror this fact. It is against this background that the principles of horizontal and vertical integration have their justification, and while they are ‘relative’ they would appear none the worse for that, for it is their ability to relate to what else is considered acceptable that is a reasonable test of whether they can form a constituent part of an ultimately unified science.

It is the last principle, the principle of elegance that most critics find provocative. Why should the truth be neat? Might not the world be an inherently messy place? Of course it might. But the aim of science in its broad sense is to impose an orderly system of understanding on this mess. As the eminent Israel historian of science Sambursky has frequently observed, the aim of science is the comprehension and the conquest of nature. We can construct explanations which are difficult to comprehend and explanations which are easy to comprehend. Those that are easy to comprehend are in general more satisfying because they have a structure which in some way marries with the structure of the mind. Notice that elegance and satisfaction are not being used as a test of the truth of an explanation; the elegance test is one of four principles which are used together to determine which of several apparently equally adequate (to the data) but mutually incompatible explanations it is more reasonable to accept.

Elegant explanations are easier to grasp, and easier to communicate, both important utilities. And, given that our aim is not merely the comprehension but the 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。