Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
sommerfeld | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 We often use the word "why" when we really mean "how". Such is the case in the questions you phrased.

A model can have a metaphysical "why" component, but that is  not mandatory. In fact, the most intellectually satisfactory models are most often disproved or unfalsifiable.
▲ ▼
Pirate HODL | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Yeah, the line between how and why does get awful blurry. Sometimes we keep using theories even if we know they're wrong/incomplete. We keep using quantum and relativity, even though they don't unify nicely. We await a better theory. Other times we keep using falsified theories in particular situations, i.e. video game physics engines using Newtonian gravity.
▲ ▼
sommerfeld | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 If a model is accurate enough and practical, there's no reason to stop using it.
Good science is pragmatic and not just a pseudo-intelectual masturbation.