Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:22:07.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Better Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Howard Darmstadter*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts at Boston

Abstract

It is argued that a better theory neither (I) proves better at enabling us to realize our goals, nor (II) enables us to make more accurate predictions than a worse theory. (I) fails because it, tacitly, erroneously assumes, in talking of our goals, that individual preferences for theories can be aggregated into a social preference ordering; (II) fails because it cannot distinguish between important and unimportant predictions. Neither of these failures can be patched up by appealing to the notion of a true theory. The conclusion is that we as yet possess no adequate understanding of the relationships among theoretical progress, goal realization, and predictive accuracy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Howard Cohen, Jonathan Rubinstein, Peter Unger, Lewis Wurgaft, and the referee of Philosophy of Science for their comments and criticisms.

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. J.Values and Collective Decision-Making.” In Philosophy, Politics and Society. Edited by Laslett, P. and Runciman, W. G. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969. Pages 215232.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V.Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.Google Scholar