Just recently I sat through a very interesting TOK presentation given by a group of IB2 students that focussed on the role of prediction in science and beyond. It has been said that to know is to be able to predict. But how true is this? Scientists often feel obliged to make predictions. Is this really what we should expect of them? Why might they feel pressured to predict? Is all science amenable to making predictions? If we can't predict, does this lessen the value of what we know? There are some examples below to get us started. I would like us to concentrate on the sciences in this thread.
The source for the following is: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/print/56082/
1869: Dmitri Mendeleev’s periodic table left spaces for elements that he predicted would be discovered. Three of these (gallium, scandium, and germanium) were subsequently discovered within his lifetime. PREDICTION: RIGHT
1964: Physicists predict the existence of the Higgs Boson. If CERN’s Large Hadron Collider finds no evidence for the existence of this massive fundamental particle, working models of the material universe might require a fundamental rethink. PREDICTION: PENDING
1965: Intel cofounder Gordon E. Moore predicts that the number of transistors on a computer chip would double every two years. The industry has so far managed to keep up (despite many predictions over the years about the law’s imminent demise). PREDICTION: RIGHT
1968: Entomologist Paul Ehrlich predicts that hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the next two decades. PREDICTION: WRONG
2002: At the website longbets.org, astronomer Sir Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, predicts that “By 2020, bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event.” Also at Long Bets, entrepreneurial engineer Ray Kurzweil bets $10,000 that by 2029 a computer will have passed the Turing Test for machine intelligence. PREDICTION: PENDING
2003: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory sponsored GeneSweep, a sweepstakes on the number of human genes. While bids averaged around 60,000 genes, it was eventually won by a bid of 25,947—the lowest of the hundreds received. PREDICTION: WRONG
2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment Report projects that global surface air temperatures will increase by between 1.1 and 6.4°C over preindustrial levels by the end of the century. PREDICTON: PENDING
I don't think that 'to know is to be able to predict' but something in your post caught my eye. You asked if inability to predict lessened the value of our knowledge. I wouldn't put it that way. I'd rather say that ability to predict adds value to what you already know. Take the intel computer chip example. If Mr. Moore had not been able to predict any trend based on his observations, then these observations would have had less implications for a lot more people than they currently do. He would simply have known that the number of transistors had been doubling bi-annually for a while and that would have been the end to his knowledge. But since he predicted the doubling 'effect,' people could also try to predict when it would be physically impossible for this to continue etc. From there, they could start thinking about ways that processor speeds could still be increased despite the limits etc. If the prediction had not been made, this 'value' of the knowledge that the number of transistors had doubled, would have been absent.
ReplyDeleteGood day.
ReplyDelete"A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions0
Then, what is a forecast?
"Forecasting is the process of estimation in unknown situations. Prediction is a similar, but more general term."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forecasting)
So, from these statements, we are sure that prediction involves estimation, which means that it may be true or it may be false.
Prediction in science, is it appropriate?
"1869: Dmitri Mendeleev’s periodic table left spaces for elements that he predicted would be discovered."
Looking at this situation, it is perhaps true that Mendeleev Dmitri predicted the other unknown elements. BUT, he may have had some idea about their existence; probably due to the pattern he discovered whilst making the periodic table. This prediction, thus had some level of truth in it only that it does not have evidence to prove its existence.
Looking at the predictions made by Gordon E. and
Paul Ehrlich, we can also PREDICT that (I really thought about whether to use this word or not. But, since i do not have evidence to prove my claim.....) these predictions might have been made due to trends which estimated the future. But did they turn out to be true? One did and the other did not. This shows clearly that predictions based on trends are not fully reliable and i believe that according to the level of basis on how a prediction is made is very crucial in determining it's truth.
Now let us have a look at prediction in terms of natural sciences and social sciences.
For natural sciences which involves the "scientific approach", (where a hypothesis is made and an experiment is carried out to find out whether the hypothesis is true or not) it may be true that predictions are less occurring and perhaps, rather than social sciences it may be more reliable.
For social sciences where they study human behaviors, predictions made not be reliable due to unpredictable human behaviors. An example is the prediction made by the Entomologist, Paul Ehrlich.
Also, if in social sciences, we predict solutions for unpredictable humans, doesn't it rather decreases the level of dependency and reliability of predictions in this aspect of science? well....
And finally, I was wondering, does technology and time play a crucial role in predictions made at that moment?.. well.. I suppose... (comments are always welcome)
To conclude, predictions in areas of science is not the best way to be able to know. however, i also think that it may be important in terms of discovery .. OR...?????
Thank you *^^*
Well I think that predictions are necessary in science as they add value to the knowledge we have, and the knowledge we are yet to acquire, just as Kwame K said. I also agree to an extent that "to know is to be able to predict" because when we posses knowledge and information, it forms the bases for our hypothesis and postulations. All the predictions made have a basis or backdrop. No scientist just "gets up" and decides to predict trends or possible occurrences in the future!! In analyzing the predictions made by various scientists, it is therefore crucial that we bear in mind, the reasons or basis for which those predictions were made. I however do not think those scientists are obligated to predict or that predictions are that necessary in life.
ReplyDeleteFine, the prediction may direct people into looking for specific knowledge but then I believe people would still look for that information in the long run. In other words, predictions may speed up the rate at which certain knowledge is acquired or discovered.
For the natural sciences, scientist use empirical knowledge gained from experiments they have carried out and trends they have observed to make predictions. Considering Mendeleev’s predictions, he used previous knowledge and trends he had observed in the elements to predict and place gallium, scandium, and germanium correctly in the periodic table.
However for the social sciences, which deal with the study of human behaviour, the predictions may turn out wrong because human behaviour is not exactly certain and differs greatly.
To Baek’s question, I think that technology and time, to an extent, influence the predictions made, especially in the social sciences because human nature changes from period to period.
In conclusion, I think predictions made in the natural scientist are somewhat “more likely to occur” because they are based on empirical knowledge and “standard or certain” observed trends. This is not the case though for the social sciences. Predictions are essential in “guiding” our quest for knowledge but may sometimes cloud or misguide us.
Goodnight!!
I would quite agree that to know is to be able to predict but only to an extent. What I believe is that since predictions are certain (sure) claims about future events to occur, predictions can only be made when there is undeniable pattern in whatever work is being done. A typical example of this is the periodic table as stated above. Since we have all done some chemistry we know that the elements in the periodic table are grouped according to their properties. In doing this, a pattern emerged and I believe that is why Mendeleev had the guts to leave spaces in the periodic table for elements yet to be discovered.
ReplyDeleteaMPEEZy pRODUCTIONs
Good day to you too baek and Beautifully said Kwame, I agree with your thoughts completely. “if we can't predict, does this lessen the value of what we know?” Well it just sounds counter-intuitive to begin with forme honestly, but by virtue of the fact that there are always two sides to an argument I hope that in this comment I’ll be able to find out exactly how, if possible, that question can be true, to what extent and if at the end of it I still support Kwame.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent TOk class presentation, I defined knowledge as what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information (Thank goodness we have Wikipedia). Now the ability to predict may sound complex at first but let us consult the first days of our immersion into scientific theory. Axioms, hypotheses, predictions (yes predictions) it has been drilled into us from day one. The errors in our utilisation of these theories have left us now in question of our very own methods.
Yes, prediction is a very utilized process. Take our very own Olevels, Alevels and IB exams as examples of prediction’s fusion in science. Predict the amount of heat gained by the system, predict the population changes that would occur, predict this, and predict that. “Scientists often feel obliged to make predictions. Is this really what we should expect of them?” I believe it is. Let’s face it predictions play a huge role in science.
I always say that I believe science is built upon reason and probability. I suppose “ probability” is what all these predictions fall under. So does it really lessen the value of what we know? I know there is grass outside… and so what? What can we predict from this. Again, “does this lessen the value of what we know?”
Once again I have changed my own mind. I guess it’s true. In computer science, I learned something around the lines of data being meaningless information except to the one who collected it. And it’s true a bunch of numbers to you and me may be the sign of Armageddon to Nicholas cage. I think we can draw a relationship between knowledge and data in that sense. Knowledge is like data: until it is processed and used to make graphs and ultimately predict things it is useless.
Baek you mentioned how Mendeleev may have had some idea of the existence of those elements at the time. We should note that out of those 3 that were alter discovered Mendeleev only discovered one, which was Germanium. I believe Lecoq de Boisbaudran (who discovered Gallium) may have been motivated by Mendeleev’s prediction and thus” it is perhaps true that Mendeleev Dmitri predicted the other unknown elements. BUT, he may have had some idea about their existence; probably due to the pattern he discovered whilst making the periodic table” may be changed to : He may have given the idea or the spark for the discovery of the other unknown elements. Prediction’s power manifested is discovery’s beauty.
It is interesting to note how many of our predictions we get wrong though. can not reject the distance predictions have hurtled us.Nobody’s perfect…so we have learned and so science cannot be either. But let us note predictions such as Mendeleev’s and Moore’s have guided us forward more than the wrong ones have guided us backwards.
Merci
Well in my very biased opinion, i think predictions in the times of Newton and Einstein where made because they actual expected to get those results but nowadays it seems to me that predictions are made to find fame and 'obtain' a name in society. Let me deviate from science for a bit, how many times have we been told that the world is coming to an end...OK maybe this may apply to science but my point is there have been many instances where people have come on national television to announce to us what is going to happen which never happens. I'm not going to generalize and say this applies to all who predict but in my opinion, these days, predictions are used to 'flaunt' one's knowledge.....at least to some extent.
ReplyDeleteI do not think predictions have to be certain claims of future events. Predictions are more like the most certain things that we think will occur in the future based on our present knowledge, thus I do not agree with Ampong's statement which says, "Predictions are certain (sure) claims about future events." By observing the facts about the predictions made by the scientists, you should have noticed that not all the predictions were right. This may be due to the inadequate amount of knowledge the scientist had at that time when the predictions were made or the change that has occurred in the world since those predictions were made.
ReplyDeletePredictions also provide an insight to the direction in which humans should steer development. This helps a lot in the way we construct our cities and technology. Paul Ehrlich’s prediction that “hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the next two decades” may have caused the humans who lived in those days to rethink their way of agriculture thus preventing the prediction from coming true. Another example is the prediction that if carbon emissions are not reduced as soon as possible, it can lead to a great depletion in the ozone layer which will result in global warming. This prediction has gone a long way to aid the production of more friendly machines in order to prevent a future occurrence which will destroy the human race.
Centuries have told the same stories over and over again. The greatest scientists, like the Newtons, Gay-Lussac’s, Einsteins and Ohm’s, gained credibility not because of the laws they established, or their ground-breaking legacies and concepts. They gained this credibility because their predictions proved true, with every test result they obtained. As Yasmin states, predictions have lost quality, in that, they seem like “promises” of truth, rather than a “bid” for truth. The article reasons this out as being caused by the “media”. And yes, I agree again. The whole world watches as men and women, who supposedly have equal cognitive abilities (scientifically proven) as ourselves take centre stage, to try and create knowledge out of “no knowledge’. Should I hasten to add, that I have often asked wondered:
ReplyDelete1. What inspired the prediction?
2. Is there a systematic sequence/order of logic predictions follow?
3. Who can predict? Can anyone at all predict? And if so, do all qualify as predictions?
Attached is a link to an article which seemed to open up as i opened Mr. kitching's one, Am i the only one? anyway here it is: http://www.enlit.net/prediction.htm
Enjoy!!!
Mehitabel Tori Markwei
I believe the aim of science is basically understand how the universe works. If a scientist is the makes a hypothesis and to a large extent is able to prove it right, then he/she must be able to apply this to any situation that might arise, unless of course there is a stated exception to this rule. Now if scientist are not able to predict the certain events would it reduce the value of what they know?
ReplyDeleteAllow me to divert slightly from the field of science and delve into history. A few thousand years ago the Mayans created a calendar that predicted seasons and years based on the movement of the sun. They predicted that would end on 21st December 2011. Years later scientists have been able to disprove that this (the fact that the world will end in 2012) will ever happen but this does not necessarily mean that their calendar was totally wrong.Then again it's not yet 2012 so you never know what will happen ;).
Back to science Newtonian physics and the laws of motion, the laws apply and are able to predict the laws of motion for anything bigger than an atom, yet these laws were supposed to be able to predict the motion of ANYTHING. Since they can't does this make them any less important? Of course not. They are still base laws in the "new science" of quantum mechanics.
Even in the new science taking causality and the chaos theory as examples, scientist are unable to predict everything because if a butterfly flaps its wings somewhere in North Korea [If they all haven't been killed of course:)] it could affect the output of an experiment somewhere in Iceland. This points back to what érudit said about science being probability. i must conclude that even though science always tries to predict, when it predictions aren't right, it does not lessen the knowledge that we have,but probably just tells us that we didn't have enough information just yet, but we should continue the search for higher knowledge to make the predictions work.
"It has been said that to know is to be able to predict."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement to an extent. This is because more often than not predictions based on knowledge increases the credibility of that particular piece of knowledge. For example, with weather forecasts, many people depend on them to go about their daily activities and many a time have I heard someone say "Oh!! Ghana weather forecasts aren't correct!" This goes to show that the ability to make predictions often increases the credibility of knowledge and its source especially in the case of the example cited were consistent wrong predictions might have caused the above conclusion. In the same vein, scientists predict as a means of affirming that a certain scientific model, theory or law works and also to give themselves and what their proposing more credit when these predictions indeed become true.
I believe predictions work in all sciences-both human and exact. During experimentations in exact sciences hypothesizes is made based on the theoretical aspect of whatever topic is being experimented on. This is a prediction as to the outcome of the experiment if the theoretical is right. The calculation of Theoretical yield is also a prediction as to how much product is formed after a reaction has taken place. In human sciences such as economics, predictions are made to try and show how the consumers will respond to changes in price of a good or other related goods. However such predictions are normally accompanied with the latin phrase "ceteris paribus" meaning "all other things being equal" This shows that there are a lot more variables to be considered in human sciences as compared to exact sciences and so these predictions are less certain.
However, not being able to predict does not lessen the value of what you know because predictions are normally based on a certain pattern or trend so if no trend exists in what we know then predictions about them may not be possible.
Well, generally speaking you have to know something exists and understand the phenomenon behind it before you can even predict anything about it. Science is a subject where we make the most predictions. For us students we are able to predict the outcomes of our laboratory experiments because someone before us has already done it and proved the predictions either right or wrong. For example, even though i might not have done the experiment i can predict that when you put blue litmus paper in acid it turns red. So i already know the outcomes of my predictions.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that scientists force the results of their outcomes to conform to their predictions?
As a scientist i believe that predictions are the basis for results because without predictions you have no idea about your outcome. Predictions are not always right as experienced by the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory.
And as Sanaa said we need to have background knowledge before we can even make predictions. Mendeelev for example knew about the elements he was expecting to find and that is why he left spaces in the periodic table.
In all sciences predictions are made even social sciences like Economics that claim that human behaviour is unpredictable, a lot of predictions are made. For example we predict that when prices of goods and services fall, people will demand more of the goods. However this is not always the case as there is what we call ‘goods of snob appeal’ where demand actually increases.
I think scientists are not pressured to predict. It is a natural instinct to predict because it gives them a sense of direction and organisation. If you do not know what to expect in an experiment then you will miss the important change you are looking for hence the experiment becomes aimless.
i think the beauty of science is the daring nature of the scientist to predict something. i don't think the prediction is an obligation but more of a knowledge claim that will take time to be proven as valid. this way it create a goal for the scientist. something to look foward to. imagine an experiment without an aim or hypothesis, then what is the point of the experiment?
ReplyDeleteOne of the examples offered at the start of this thread was related to the Large Hadron Collider.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting because the collider is set up to detect an elementary particle that is predicted to exist as a result of an overarching theory known as the standard model of particle physics (isn't this a bit like the situation in the 19th century with Mendeleev's work?).
If this particle doesn't exist, the model (that has been a cornerstone of modern physics for half a century) will be in big trouble and physicists will have to deal with a big hole in their current theory. But isn't there a problem with trying to show that something doesn't exist?
The latest on this story can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/24/hadron-collider-proton-collision
We will be discussing particle physics as an example of work in the natural sciences early next semester, so get yourself up to speed (of light?)!
Predictions are based on prior knowledge and what scientists estimate will happen in the near future. Therefore, there must be at least a little truth present in predictive statements.
ReplyDeletePerhaps without making these predictions scientist feel that they will not be able to move forward in their scientific research. One of the main principles we learn about science as children is that we must make hypotheses.
To me predictions are like guidelines they tell us the direction in which science is moving and give us a path obviously not all predictions are absolutely necessary in fact they're confusing.
Predictions can also act as warnings, such as with global warming but then what of the recent report from scientists that actually the world is cooling down. In this case perhaps we would be better off without predictions?
Yeah Chelsea, we really ought to question all these predictions, about our world! And what about the ones about when exactly the world will come to an end?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332429,00.html
Then again, it boils down to my previous point, do you think the media has a role to play on the spate of predictions? Even now, the media is buzzing with reasons for Oprah Winfrey's resignation as talkshow host. Even though Winfrey gives no substantial reasons why, except that she believes it is the "right time" (as broadcasted on TheAssociated Press), many are those who claim that her resignation is due to her New Age belief which predicts "The End Of The World" to be 2012!
An even more fascinating prediction was one made by mathematician De Moivre, who worked with Newton and other Scientists al ot. For the Math HL students, we're all familiar with De Moivre's Theorem!!! Guess what? He actually predicted the day of his death, because he realized that he was sleeping 15 minutes longer everyday!!! He transformed this into a sequence, and used it to estimate that the day he sleeps for 24 hours, would be the day of his death. He predicted this to be on a certain day in November, and truly truly, he died on that day! So to what extent are predictions truly ways of knowing? And when are they of quality to us?...
Science is very dynamic and knowledge today may be a fallacy in years to come thus, it is very wise to make provisions for the future by predicting. For example, if Mendeleev hadn’t predicted that other elements in the periodic table will later be discovered, his model of the table will have fallen apart upon the discovery of gallium and the other elements. This, I believe, proves that not predicting can not only lessen the value of knowledge but render that knowledge valueless.
ReplyDeleteAnother example that comes to play here is the scientific method itself that is grounded in the concepts of experimentation, observation and hypothesising. Basically, gaining knowledge involves making educated predictions and thus it is safe to claim that knowledge itself is obtained from proving predictions. Again, we see that lack of predictions will lead to lack of knowledge.
So in response to Baek’s question or statement: Predictions are very vital in gaining scientific knowledge. And to Metty: Anyone can predict but till this prediction is backed with substantial support, it cannot be qualified as knowledge.
Nanahene
Chelsea makes an important point above when she reminds us that in science we are often encouraged to formulate hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteIsn't a hypothesis a kind of prediction? A statement of expectations from an experiment - made in advance? If so, surely that is a perfectly legitimate sort of prediction in science.
Now can we differentiate between that sort of prediction and another kind that is more speculative?
Personally i think predictions are more of someones private knowledge that later turn into public knowledge because when you predict something and it proves right, it therefore becomes public knowledge because it is accepted by a group of people.Scientists also predict to prove their claim of knowing just like Clementine said.The other point i want to make is that i think for you to predict something you have to have some small knowledge about it. Lastly to answer Mr Kitching's question, Hypothesis and Predictionare the same in the sense that they are all made in advance (which means they are already ther before the results) and i think they can all be proven wrong or right depending on the results, meaning that they are not always right. Linda Ndlela
ReplyDeleteI think if a concept is understood some certain patterns can be seen, this is what gives rise to predictions. For instance global warming is a phenomenon in which the atmosphere acuumulates heat: we may be able to predict that there will be a point in which the ice caps will begin to melt.We should then expect scientists to makew predictions because expect them to fully understand their work. All sciences aree amenable to predictions. I also beleive if you cannot predict it lessens the value of what we know. This because if we truly know and understand we shuold be able to predict. I support this further because a lot of answers to science questions require predictions. What do colour do you expect to see in a test positive for starch. Also science experiments require hypotheses.-Kwesi Twum
ReplyDeleteI think if a concept is understood some certain patterns can be seen, this is what gives rise to predictions. For instance global warming is a phenomenon in which the atmosphere accumulates heat: we may be able to predict that there will be a point in which the ice caps will begin to melt.We should then expect scientists to make predictions because we expect them to fully understand their work. All sciences are amenable to predictions. I also beleive if you cannot predict it lessens the value of what you know. This because if we truly know and understand we shuold be able to predict. I support this further because a lot of answers to science questions require predictions.E.g. What do colour do you expect to see in a test positive for starch? Also science experiments require hypotheses.-Kwesi Twum
ReplyDeleteIn talking about science and the power of predicting , predictions I would say sort of pave a way for future experimentation and discovery of subsequent findings; based upon what we have in the present. In setting hypotheses, it is essential because it kind of sets boundaries so that people do not veer off course.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think so many things affect the way people predict. With humans and imagination, it is humane for one to actually think of something far above expectations. For example, after the advent of cars, people began to fantasize about flying cars in the near future...and still pending. Another example might be looking at the advent of wireless technology. Make mention of this ten years ago and people would look at you questionably.
But the truth of the matter is with human imagination and fact finding, predictions are an integral part of science and discovery. Some did think about having a cordless telephone back then, and by predicting it, paved the way for others to work with present findings to attain such. We must not underestimate the power of predictions; because predictions are what shape our future.
Predictions are "statements" made about the future by observing present situations. I agree with the fact that to make predictions means to know. As Sanaa said not just anybody can come out and say something about the future without having knowledge about it.However, i think you shouldn't know everything to make a prediction you should just be abreast in the area you want to make your prediction in. For instance for a geographer you don't need to science oriented to be able to make a prediction about population structures. As for the predictions made by Mendeleev and Moore it worked out for them because they knew what they were about.To answer Baek's question i believe predictions are necessary in areas of discovery because one has to have an idea about to look for before searching for it.
ReplyDelete'To know is to be able to predict' mmmmh, nice phrase but I don't think i'll agree 100% with it because 'to know' means to understand something clearly and with Certainity. So if this is the case, why would some of the predictions end up being wrong at the end?? As a science student i think it would be better for me to say that predictions are just things that are most likely to happen if the factors that affect whatever is being observed follow the expected trend otherwise if they don't, they'll end up proving the predictions wrong.
ReplyDeleteSheila wangari
ReplyDeleteprediction lead to discoveries and before one predicts something they have to have some knowledge on it. when a prediction is made there has to be some reason behind it. when Mendeleev predicted that some elements were missing he had knowledge about it. the periodic table is based on predictions which can be proven.when a prediction is made someone somewhere will try to prove it wrong while the predictor will try to prove it right.in the process a new discovery may be found. in science when a hypothesis is made usually on has some knowledge on the thing .therefore they either work to prove it wrong or right.predictions also have an impact on our future for instance it was predicted that if global warming increases some island countries in the coast will be sank. therefore people are working to prevent this thus it is affecting their future industrial activities. therefore predictions should be taken in to consideration as they affect our day to day lives.
i think the knowledge we already have is what will enable us to predict. one can only predict something that they have already have a clue for. an example i can give is that when doing a science experiment i can be able to predict the results of an experiment based on the knowledge i already have of the experiment. predictions help us carry on.
ReplyDeleteIn line with the point I made about hypotheses as being a form of prediction(BEFORE CHELSEA'S! :-P) I agree that this gives rise to there being different types of prediction. Some of which are more certain and others that are speculative. Speculative predictions would have a higher chance of NOT coming true because they have either weak bases (or no bases at all) which is contrary to predictions like hypotheses which usually have strong theoretical backing. However, when speculative predictions are made by people who are known to be knowledgeable in that subject area they gain more credibility despite insufficient backing and people are likely to believe them.
ReplyDeleteIt is best to always define the key words before you explain something! According to Longman dictionary of contemporary English, Prediction is to say that something will happen before it happens. Therefore from this definition I can confidently say that to know is not necessarily being able to predict. Don't you think it is less more of guess work? Take for example the periodic table, Dmitri MendeleeV left spaces for elements that he predicted would be discovered. These elements were unknown by that time so therefore he DID NOT know them and there was no previous knowledge used to predict but rather guess work was involved. From my own point of view, I think making predictions or hypothesis about something is really based on thoughts and guess work on the whole playing a huge role! And this to some extent lessens the value of our knowledge as it shows that we are guessing on something and it may or may not come true, though sometimes we might guess based on the previous knowledge and turn out right!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is no point in having knowledge if we cannot use it to predict. the whole point of acquiring knowledge is to be able to understand the world in which we live in. if we could not formulate predictions we would not be able to go about our daily lives. we wouldnt know whether it would rain or snow or there would be hail and as a result we would never be prepared. an old saying is 'its better to be safe than sorry'. that in my opinion is the whole point of knowledge so we know what to expect in this world. ofcourse there is the possiblity that the knowledge we acquire is wrong and as a result the predictions we make are also wrong but such is life. we cannot be right all the time
ReplyDeleteTo know is to be able to predict! How true is this? Well, in my opinion, to know is to be able to predict but not all the time. Sometimes, you can predict without necessarily knowing and the other way round, thus sometimes, you could know and yet might not be able to predict the right thing at least. Relating this to science and predictions, I would say predictions in science are very important because they help predict the future and how it would be like within a particular period of time, or even experiments and their possible outcomes. And Melissa, I like your example about the flying cars in the near future because I actually had that in mind as well.
ReplyDeleteHuman imagination and fact finding, which involves predictions, really form an essential part of science.
For most of the inventions that existed and still exist today, they were all predictions made by some people based on probably their personal experiences. Considering the fact that science experiments involve hypothesis, it could also be said that yes, predictions are really important in science since hypothesis involve predictions on what is expected to happen at the end of the experiment.
Therefore, I think predictions should be treated with some importance in science since it's the like the basis for most, if not all science experiments, even though we are sometimes misled because we made wrong hypotheses or predictions.
Thank you
Christopher Cobbina
we predict according to the knowledge we got from sense perception and other ways of knowing. if we do not have any knowledge we can not predict for future. all experiment that we do is difficult to predict for all instances because how much we trust our knowledge that we got from sense perception through reported knowledge.to know able to predict we should have some knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSamuel Mekonnen said......
ReplyDeletewe predict according to the knowledge we got from sense perception and other ways of knowing. if we do not have any knowledge we can not predict for future. all experiment that we do is difficult to predict for all instances because how much we trust our knowledge that we got from sense perception through reported knowledge.to know able to predict we should have some knowledge.
l would like to agree with samuel partially that for one to makke a predictiond he/she should have background knowledge from not only sense perception but from also emotion ,language and reasoning .And would like to talk about that if we can't predict it does not lessen the value of what we know but it does limits us to only what we know and does not allow room for future discoveries e.g if l predict that it will rain today because of the little knowledge that l have in geography and it does not rain and this proves to be a wrong prediction then l would be drived to find out what about the wether made it impossible to rain. hance l will widen my knowledge in the process of getting all this. so it is not the value of what we know that is lessened because you still know what you have always known but it limits what you can know.
ReplyDeleteRitah Nantongo said.........
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that; ‘to know is to be able to predict’, because you cannot predict about something you do not know about. For instance if u predict that u will get grade seven, it is based on the knowledge that you have on that subject. This means that you know whether you are strong or weak on the subject. Therefore I believe that you have to know something to predict on it.
I also agree with the statement to know is to be able to predict. However the knowledge we have may not be able to give us the right predictions. As a science student i should be able to make predictions before i carry out an experiment however my prediction although the basis may be true may not be necessarily because to certain theories or laws in science, there might be flaws. Also in the social science say economics the knowledge of many theories may help us determine what might happen in a certain situation. But however there are still more exceptions to the many laws and theories in economics. Therefore we may be able to predict based on our knowledge however it may or may not be right.
ReplyDeleteI feel that scientists should not always be expected to make predictions. Furthermore, the fact that we may not be able to predict does not lessen the value of our knowledge, because some situations are simply out of our reach, and we are only human. We still have many discoveries to make. I think that scientists may feel obliged to predict because it makes science more useful to us; i.e. our scientific knowledge can be used even more to have an idea of future events, instead of using it only to understand the world around us.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the predictions about people dying by a certain date seem a bit outrageous to me, honestly. Well, maybe it's because it has to do with dying, and I don't know the scientists' backing behind those predictions.
But in general, as quite a few people said, to know is not necessarily to be able to predict. Knowledge can help us make predictions and ones which are more probable, but not in every case.
Most often than not, predictions are based on empiricism for most subject areas. It is the observations that help to draw a conclusion that if the same thing is happening all the time, then this is going to happen in a few years to come or whatever but this cannot always be true. Weather forecasts may be wrong because our world keeps on changing everyday and there are a lot of things that can affect the weather patterns. I disagree with Shawn, however, when he says that predictions work in all sciences- both human and exact. Yes, a few of the may be general, but often, for the social (human) sciences such as economics which are based on human behaviour, predictions cannot be 100% right because behaviour differs greatly form person to person and therefore, general statements cannot be drawn about them…so predictions made about them may often be wrong.
ReplyDelete“To know is to be able to predict”
I also agree with this statement to some extent just as a lot of people do according to their comments. After gaining some knowledge of a particular subject area through observations, it can be obvious that certain things may be true based on the knowledge we have obtained and therefore can make predictions that may be right…so the knowledge serves as a basis for our predictions. But then again, they may be wrong. I do also believe, though, that Moore and Mendeleev probably had an idea about the existence of those elements that he left spaces for… “Dmitri Mendeleev’s periodic table left spaces for elements that he “KNEW” would be discovered.”
-MZ
@ Kwame k, I think your view on what Mr. Kitching said boils down to the same point actually, our inability to predict lessens the value of our knowledge and in other words you could say our ability however, adds value to our knowledge. Why?
ReplyDeleteUpon keen observations, some things become known to us, but as humans we have an urge to know more and in detail. That is why we have scientists, entomologists etc. taking a giant step to make complex predictions on certain phenomena following chronological patterns or using inferred knowledge. Some end up false others end up true. Predictions are used all the time; weather forecasting, experimentation etc. Some knowledge come as a result of building on prior knowledge, hence our ability to predict shows how we understand the knowledge we hold,- intelligent we are. When these predictions are confirmed, we end up knowing more and in detail, we move from the basic to the complex, hence we add value to what we already know!!
I do not think that knowing something is limited to just being able to predict. I think that there is a broader scope when it comes to placing value on knowledge (if knowledge can really be valued) If knowledge was limited to predicting, does that make those who made wrong predictions dumb (assuming that was the opposite of being knowledgeable)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yasmin because it does indeed seem as though the trend to predict something has lost its main purpose which is to broaden the scope of knowledge worldwide. Sadly, the fame seems to be the main priority now.
Also, I do not agree with katakyie when he said the whole point of having knowledge is to be able to predict. Regarding the example about the weather, it hardly immediately starts to rain or snow without there being some sort of forewarning (example temperature changes, wind speeds, etc) I think that the ability to predict is definitely a plus to your knowledge but one can still go about their daily lives without predicting every single thing. Where is the element of surprise in life and the joy that comes along with out-of-the-blue discoveries if everything was predicted before hand?
I agree that making predictions adds major value to our already acquired knowledge. Making substantial and probable predictions is only made possible based on previous knowledge. Its like reasoning; based on some previous information we have about something(our premise) we can come to some conclusion,only that in this case, our conclusions they are things we expect to happen since predictions only pertain to the future.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I believe that without knowledge making meaningful predictions will be impossible.Especially in science we are expected to make hypothesis or predict the expected outcome of an experiment based on some knowledge about the properties or nature of the materials being used or experimented upon.
Another conclusion I came to was that sometimes its not all knowledge that enables us to make predictions about the future of that particular area of knowledge. Either the knowledge/ information is not enough or sufficient to form solid predictions. Sometimes the information we have about the object in particular may not be relevant to the situation we wish to make predictions about.
Yes in science, scientists are sometimes pressurized to make predictions because i personally think that knowledge in science is useless and of no exciting value if we cannot project into the future based on the things we know and have found out.
Another reason may be because science, aside giving us the causes and reasons behind certain phenomena,is also meant to come out with ingenious inventions that make the lives of humans more comfortable. So yes they will be pressurized to predict so with any occurrences that may be harmful to us, we can start thinking of ways to prevent them or deal with them.For example with the spread of some pandemics, the devastating effects of global warming etc.
Finally, i will just like to add that with the social sciences such as economics etc making predictions that are more likely to occur is very difficult, particularly because they involve human beings, who are, as we all know, as unpredictable as they can get.
I just wanted to add again that with the wrong predictions sometimes its as a result of too many uncertainties and loop holes in the prediction process.Like I said before its like reasoning. When we reason we may make certain generalizations that are not necessarily true. Science is a "prophetic" area of knowledge and i realized that even with predictions that don't happen ,when we trace back to the origin or the basis on which the prediction was made we often find that they have some truth in them.
ReplyDeleteYasmin i think even if we predict that something will happen we are not completing dismissing the element of surprise as to when things happen spontaneously!The word is "predicting" not "prophesying", and this comes with a possibility of whether the event is going to take place- there is no certainty!
ReplyDeleteLike Dionne said in economics,some predictions are unlikely to end up true because human behaviour is so unpredictable, so imagine if in some cases our predictions are confirmed, there will definitely be an element of surprise and excitement that our knowledge claims are accurate!
Hi all
ReplyDeleteI do believe that to know is to be able to predict this is because it is not possible to formulate a substantial prediction without some prior knowledge on the topic. You can look at it from a different angle though in that everyone is entitled to his/her own and opinions whether or not they have a strong basis for their opinions. Therefore this means that everyone is entitled his/her own prediction on a topic regardless of whether they “know” anything about the topic or not. Those who claim to “know” often predict wrongly as we have seen in the thread. Hwang Woo-Suk supposedly found the solution to therapeutic cloning but 4 years on and no results were seen. This means that even a scientist was incapable of predicting properly. Therefore the claim that to know is to be able to predict is not justifiable and is open to subjectivity.
Scientists predictions are often what lead to further research and help the discovery of several things we need in our world today ie. vaccines. However I don’t think that they should feel obliged to make any predictions, although it does help, because this just puts unnecessary pressure on them which leads to many of the hasty inaccurate predictions we get today. As we have seen from the thread countries rely on science a great deal for their economies and politicians also rely on science as a way of enhancing their policies on issues like global warming etc. This is the very thing that drives scientist to make wrongful predictions. They should be given the necessary amount of time to research to a greater extent in order for them to come up with more substantiated predictions.
Well i believe to that to know is to be able to predict, but it does not mean that your predictions will be accurate, for example if i know it is cloudy and dark, because i sensed that from sight, and i predict that its going to rain there,because i know that it usually happens that way, the cloud may just pass and the rain might fall elsewhere, and therefore i got the fact that it was going to rain, but it did not rain where i predicted that it was going to. But, i disagree with the statement that to be unable to predict lessens the value of our knowledge, because for example for an economist, he knows all the possible outcomes for a price change, but they are numerous, but he has to assume that all other things are equal, making a particular prediction for the effect of for example, a price change of a good. If one of the factors assumed constant changes, his prediction is countered, but it doesn't mean he did not know that would happen if that factor changed in the way it did. So the value of knowledge is not lessened.
ReplyDeleteGood day! some interesting comments I got from "http://www.quotecosmos.com/subjects/932/Prediction"
ReplyDeletePredictions of the future are never anything but projections of present automatic processes and procedures, that is, of occurrences that are likely to come to pass if men do not act and if nothing unexpected happens; every action, for better or worse, and every accident necessarily destroys the whole pattern in whose frame the prediction moves and where it finds its evidence.
Arendt, Hannah
No one can possibly know what is about to happen: it is happening, each time, for the first time, for the only time.
Baldwin, James
He who asks fortune-tellers the future unwittingly forfeits an inner intimation of coming events that is a thousand times more exact than anything they may say. He is impelled by inertia, rather than curiosity, and nothing is more unlike the submissive apathy with which he hears his fate revealed than the alert dexterity with which the man of courage lays hands on the future.
Benjamin, Walter
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
Bohr, Niels
Legends of prediction are common throughout the whole Household of Man. Gods speak, spirits speak, computers speak. Oracular ambiguity or statistical probability provides loopholes, and discrepancies are expunged by Faith. Guin, Ursula K.
The unpredictability inherent in human affairs is due largely to the fact that the by-products of a human process are more fateful than the product.
Hoffer, Eric
I think predictability has become the rule and I'm completely the opposite -- I like spectators to be disturbed.
Malle, Louis
Do they convey anything??
I think your view on what Mr. Kitching said boils down to the same point actually, our inability to predict lessens the value of our knowledge and in other words you could say our ability however, adds value to our knowledge. Why?
ReplyDeleteUpon keen observations, some things become known to us, but as humans we have an urge to know more and in detail. That is why we have scientists, entomologists etc. taking a giant step to make complex predictions on certain phenomena following chronological patterns or using inferred knowledge. Some end up false others end up true. Predictions are used all the time; weather forecasting, experimentation etc. Some knowledge come as a result of building on prior knowledge, hence our ability to predict shows how we understand the knowledge we hold,- intelligent we are. When these predictions are confirmed, we end up knowing more and in detail, we move from the basic to the complex, hence we add value to what we already know!!
Laylat Seif
I think your view on what Mr. Kitching said boils down to the same point actually, our inability to predict lessens the value of our knowledge and in other words you could say our ability however, adds value to our knowledge. Why?
ReplyDeleteUpon keen observations, some things become known to us, but as humans we have an urge to know more and in detail. That is why we have scientists, entomologists etc. taking a giant step to make complex predictions on certain phenomena following chronological patterns or using inferred knowledge. Some end up false others end up true. Predictions are used all the time; weather forecasting, experimentation etc. Some knowledge come as a result of building on prior knowledge, hence our ability to predict shows how we understand the knowledge we hold,- intelligent we are. When these predictions are confirmed, we end up knowing more and in detail, we move from the basic to the complex, hence we add value to what we already know!!
i disagree with teye. the statement 'to be unable to predict lessens the value of our knowledge' is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable. most of the concepts in economics are almost imposible to explore because economists asume tooo many factors to be constant. if all these factors presumed constant actually stay constant (which is highly unlikely) then the prediction that is made would be correct. ofcourse it is very unlikely that all the factors are going to stay constant but IF they do then the prediction will be right.
ReplyDeleteIs all science amenable to making predictions? I can’t be too sure, but I’m quite certain for social sciences, predictions are highly uncertain and very volatile because in these cases, human behavior is being dealt with, and we all know how unpredictable, erratic we, emotional creatures can be. For example, consider the stock market where despite the best quants coming up with the very best mathematical algorithms, top quant investment banks make heavy losses and their financial models go awry. Why? Because you can’t predict humans. With humans, there are potentially, limitless courses of action that well, only a highly simplified, downgraded model of human behavior can be made…But well, at least you can try…Modelling human behavior can be quite successful though. I remember reading about how digitization of everything is making it easier to predict human actions…For example, online purchases give a rough idea of consumer patterns, and tastes and preferences…Search engine searches tell us what people are interested in and stuff like that…and so on...Hope I've made my point..Thanks guys.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, I’m out.
Have a good day.
SAM SARP.
To know is to be ABLE to predict is true to a large extent. Having a sound basis of prior knowledge, and reasoning using that knowledge to unearth general patterns (if any) in data allows the formulation of reasonable and educated guesses, no matter how wild or unconventional the hypothesis might be. Predicting without any prior knowledge in my opinion, is like a blind guy attempting to lead another blind one down a path.
ReplyDeleteDo scientists often feel pressured to make predictions? In this present age of external sources of funding for scientific research, I must say that yes; scientists feel pressured to make predictions. Why? Well, a lot of the time, for a scientist to perform groundbreaking research using cutting-edge technology, a substantial capital is required hence the scientist has to apply for scientific funding. But, mind you, those who invest in scientific ventures most of the time are business-minded people who are in to reap some profit on their investments; they are not always necessarily interested in the sheer pursuit of pure scientific knowledge, but they consider the commercial applications in the long-term. Hence, they want some guarantee of success. Proposals by scientists are not considered on the merit of the idea per se but rather on the guarantee and immediate, foreseeable applications. This is where the problem arises. You see, genuine science is not a money-making venture, although that may accompany it. However, scientists are compelled to present conservative proposals for funding, backed by reasonably assured predictions which more often than not, involve the scientist already virtually knowing half of the answer to his scientific research. But science is an audacious thing. To make earth-moving headway, risk-taking, status-quo breaking approaches are needed, but that is what scientific funding happens to stifle. (Sadly) The situation is even worse for bubbling early-career researchers with fresh ideas and unrestrained enthusiasm, since they have to prove themselves with conservative research to even catch the attention of a sponsor. They are discouraged from tackling obstinate science problems, from engaging in very radical science research. But this isn’t the stuff real science should be made of, right?
Yeah. I don’t think we should expect very comprehensive predictions from scientists, that basically has answers to the research question, although a team of well-seasoned experts would have to test all potential ideas rigorously to ensure that no cuckoo, mad scientists lead everyone on a wild goose chase.
Thanks.
I'm out.
SAM SARP
yeah, i do agree that to know is to predict.Why? because any predictions we make are based on our previous knowledge concerning a subject. politicians, managers and all leaders make predictions based on inference reasoning and or past knowledge. in science, hypothesis are made based on inferred and reported Knowledge. for this reason one can't predict if they have no idea of what the issue or problem at hand is like. as earlier stated by some of my mates, predictions do help us know the future though it might not necessarily true. This makes predictions logical because they only portray what the problem or future might turn out to be. again it doesn't make it the real thing because scientist for example have conclusion which they state what the actual results were. ainsi, a mon avie...i think to know is to predict.
ReplyDeleteto begin with, I find the heading very challenging, “to know is to be able to predict” is this really necessary? Do we have to make predictions always In order to learn stuff? Rather I think it is knowing something that gives you the confidence to make predictions because you know what you are actually talking about and have reasonable facts to support the prediction. Does it also mean that I I don’t make any predictions it means I don’t know anything?
ReplyDeleteConsidering hypothesis as a prediction: hypothesis is made based on the knowledge we acquire from the system using our sense perception, but hypothesis is not always true and we carry out experiment in order to prove or disprove our hypothesis and if our hypothesis is found wrong, our prediction was wrong. Therefore, sticking to the topic of discussion, our knowledge cannot always be used for prediction.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the summer holidays, at the mention of this topic, I remembered reading a book by Michio Kaku entitled 'The Physics Of The Impossible'. In this book was a quotation by T.H White a writer which said 'Anything that is not impossible is mandatory'.
ReplyDeleteFeeding of this quote I would like to point out the entire reason for the sciences we as a species ardently follow is to fully understand the world around us. In 'The Physics of The Impossible', Kaku predicts the possibles and ways in which ideas of science fiction such as teleportation, time travel become a reality.
In the end, it does make sense because should we understand something as being a fact then it should be true for even situations that then we can actually take our focus towards that or know wheteher our perception of the world is true or not. Take for example Mendeleev's periodic table in the end all his predictions were true and now we know more about the substances that make up our world. If it was wrong then we would know then what way that we shouldn't approach classifying these substances as.
Either way we gain knowledge in one way or another and this our aim.
If a prediction is a certain statement,or a fact someone knows and is absolutely sure of,some of the above scientists made predictions,not necessarily because they were valid,but because of the degree of certainty they had in the statements they advanced.For example,the entomologist Paul Enrilch who predicted starvation to death in the couple of decades to come made a prediction,since he researched and seriously thought about it,although he didn't foresee measures taken to be able to fight the famine indeed.The fact that his comment was invalid ,didn't mean it wasn't a prediction,because he was however certaain of it,and that is what a prediction implies-certainty.
ReplyDeletePrevious comment posted by Claire
ReplyDeleteFirstly form the topic "to know is to be to predict" i seriously think this not necessirily because you can always not know something but still predict, but the question you later ask yourself is that is it really true ?because for instance in the sciences we normally predict during our experiments, we predict due to our previuos knowledge on the experment being carried out but the prediction can does not necessirily has to be true at the end of the experment .so to some extent the topic makes lots of sense but not really depends on what you know.
ReplyDeleteI think knowledge can be used for prediction and it had been effective on so many instances however the main problem would be if the knowledge we have may not be justified to be true. As a result it could lead to a wrong conclusion. There is such a thing called correct knowledge about unchanging natural phenomenon that could have concrete and unarguable features in these areas of knowledge prediction could be important however in areas of knowledge which studies about human behavior prediction is insignificant because it is always changing. YEHUALASHET TEFERA
ReplyDeletei personally think that prediction is the key tool to finding knowledge.Basically in the sciences we usually predict certain things like for example at first people predicted that the earth was flat.Because of these predictions many scientists started to research if these prediction was true and finally came up with the result which we follow to date that the earth is a sphere.Although predictions can be false or true it does not matter what matters is that they lead into finding more about the world around us.
ReplyDelete