# Science is Problem Solving > Science is [Problem](Problem.md) solving. [Scientific progress is driven forward via *solving problems*](Science%20is%20driven%20forward%20by%20problems,%20not%20observations.md), as outlined most clearly by [Karl Popper in his writings on the Scientific Method](Poppers%20Scientific%20Method.md). It follows the [Problem Solving Process](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md). It is a process of finding good [Explanations](Explanations.md). However, scientific problem solving always includes a particular method of rational criticism, namely *experimental testing*. Where two or more rival theories make conflicting predictions about the outcome of an experiment, the experiment is performed and the theory or theories that made false predictions are abandoned. The very construction of scientific conjectures is focused on finding explanations that have experimentally testable predictions. Ideally we are always seeking crucial experimental tests — experiments whose outcomes, whatever they are, will falsify one or more of the contending theories.  Here I must mention an asymmetry which is important in the philosophy and methodology of science: the [Asymmetry Between Experimental Refutation and Experimental Confirmation](Asymmetry%20Between%20Experimental%20Refutation%20and%20Experimental%20Confirmation.md). Whereas an incorrect prediction automatically renders the underlying explanation unsatisfactory, a correct prediction says nothing at all about the underlying explanation. If a theory about observable events is untestable — that is, if no possible observation would rule it out — then it cannot by itself explain why those events happen in the way they are observed to and not in some other way. For example the theory that planetary motion is "caused by angels" is untestable because no matter how planets moved, that motion could be attributed to angels. It is incapable of explaining *why* the planets move in the *particular* way that they do, and not some other way. Therefore the angel theory cannot explain the particular motions that we see, unless it is supplemented by an independent theory of how angels move, which then explains why we observe the particularities of planetary movement. Testability implies [*constraints*](Constraints%20are%20Foundational.md). Without constraints, *anything* and *everything* could and would happen. By excluding certain possibilities, the theory provides a reason *the world behaves in the way it does and not in some other arbitrary way*. That is why there is a methodological rule in science which says that once an experimentally testable theory has passed the appropriate tests, any less testable rival theories about the same phenomena are summarily rejected, for their explanations are bound to be inferior. This rule is often cited as distinguishing science from other types of knowledge-creation. But if we take the view that science is about explanations, we see that this rule is really a special case of something that applies naturally to all problem-solving: theories that are capable of giving more detailed explanations are automatically preferred. They are preferred for two reasons: 1. A theory that ‘sticks its neck out’ by being more specific about more phenomena opens up itself and its rivals to more forms of criticism, and therefore has more chance of taking the problem-solving process forward. 2. If such a theory survives the criticism, it leaves less unexplained — which is the object of the exercise. Visually we can think of a theory as providing some set of constraints as outlined by the blob below. The more the theory sticks its neck out, the more constraining the blob will be. An observation could then be the red point. If the red point falls *outside* of the constraining blob (what the theory predicts will happen), then the theory has been falsified: we know it cannot be true. However, if we observe that the red point falls *inside* the blob, that does *not* confirm our theory! We just have not been able to reject it yet. For a theory to be true, every single point from "reality" would need to fall inside of the blob. That requires testing an infinite number of points. Not only is that infeasible, but because some tests are based on knowledge, we don't even know what they are yet. So in a sense, the "space of points" is not even fully known yet[^1]  Notice the elegance of this binary question: does the red point fall within the blob, yes or no? We don't have specifically deal with "credences" or "degrees". We are dealing with a purely binary scenario. p Note that even in science most criticism does not consist of experimental testing. That is because most scientific criticism is directed not at a theory’s predictions but directly at the underlying explanations. Testing the predictions is just an indirect way (albeit an exceptionally powerful one, when available) of testing the explanations. Consider the [Grass Cure for the Common Cold](Grass%20Cure%20for%20the%20Common%20Cold.md) - the theory that eating a kilogram of grass is a cure for the common cold. That theory and an infinity of others of the same ilk are readily testable. But we can criticize and reject them without bothering to do any experiments, purely on the grounds that they explain no more than the prevailing theories which they contradict, yet make new, unexplained assertions. Also note that this entire problem solving enterprise is quite "organic". There is usually much back tracking before each stage is completed, or rather, *solved* - for each stage often consists of it's own [Problem Solving Process](Problem%20Solving%20Process.md). Even the problem itself is often creatively redefined, criticized and better problems are conjectured. Likewise, if our criticisms at stage three fail, we try and invent new methods of criticism! This could be new methods of experimentation, rational argument, and so on. It is only when the discovery is complete that a fairly sequential argument, in a pattern like the figure above, can be presented. It can begin with the latest and best version of the problem; then it can show how some of the rejected theories fail criticism; then it can set out the winning theory, and say why it survives criticism; then it can explain how one copes without the superseded theory; and finally it can point out some of the new problems that this discovery creates or allows for. --- Date: 20241011 Links to: [Fabric of Reality](Fabric%20of%20Reality.md) pg 63-66 Tags: References: * [x.com](https://x.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/791213505626140672) [^1]: This is related to [Reach](Reach.md). Some theories, such as general relativity, had reach far outside their original scope. They can account for problems ("red points" that fall within the "constraining blob" - the theory of general relativity) that had not even been thought of.