Re: Explanationism is the idea that prediction is, in itself, insufficient
[#permalink]
04 Mar 2025, 10:22
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION QUESTION #2
(E).
After citing the example of the Copernicus and Brahe models of the universe, the author states in the first paragraph that "a theory can successfully predict a certain event, yet fail to provide an adequate explanation for why it happened." In other words, both of their theories have predictive power, but Brahe's does not offer the best explanation for the workings of the solar system. This supports choice (E). As for (A), the author is actually arguing the opposite: that predictive power alone is never enough to verify a theory. Regarding (B), the author does reveal that some theories have more or less of an ad hoc quality, but this is not the author's reason for citing this example. The main reason must be related back to explanationism. As for (C), the example showed the opposite-both theories were found to accurately predict future events, and thus they must have both made the same predictions for those future events. Although it is true that the more complicated model failed, the author's intent was to show that an incorrect model can still make correct predictions; eliminate (D).