Carol Cleland Would not agree with the D-N methods evaluation of the relationship between predictions and

explanations. I will show this by demonstrating the differences between explanation and prediction set forth by Cleland as well as showing the different methods employed by scientists searching to either explain a past event or predict a future one. The D-N model asserts that predictions and explanations are essentially the same thing and that the same methods are employed to derive either one. The primary difference between predictions and explanations is that predictions serve to explain the future while explanations serve to explain the past. Cleveland on the other hand asserts that explanations and predictions are distinctly different and can be generated via completely different methods. Cleland believes that explanations are derived from historical sciences. That is sciences which attempt to confront questions such as the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs or other such mysteries. The historical science method for deriving an explanation for a particular event is to observe the event or phenomenon in question then formulate numerous mutually exclusive hypothesis as to the cause. ! good hypothesis unifies the numerous effects created by a single cause under one causal hypothesis "quote #$%& 'nce a hypothesis is established scientists set out to discover evidence which meshes with the target hypothesis. They especially are see(ing a )smo(ing gun) which can strongly indicate *the best explanation+ of the phenomenon that is to be explained. "Cleland ,g. #$-& Cleland believes that predictions are derived from experimental sciences. In the experimental sciences one hypothesis is the focus of the experimentation as opposed to a myriad of mutually exclusive hypothesis investigated within the historical sciences. The

.istorical science exemplifies the idea that causes are over-determined by their effects. That is to say that any event or phenomenon to be explained will have different and widely spread effects of which numerous but not all must be discovered in order to infer the existence of the cause. This is evident in many historical cases such as the theory of continental drift. The theory was apparently verified when many different facts derived from the world were all found to fit under the causal umbrella of continental drift. This along with the smo(ing gun of alternating magnetic bands on the ocean floor propelled continental drift to the position of *the best explanation+. /hereas historical sciences exemplify the over-determination of causes by their effects experimental sciences exemplify the idea of effects being under-determined by their causes. This concept ma(es its self apparent in nearly all laboratory studies. These studies are done by controlling the causal factors and eliminating all but one potential causes to produce a pre determined or *predicted+ result. The difference between the two sections of science is that experimental sciences focuses on proving one hypothesis right whereas experimental science focuses on forming many mutually exclusive hypothesis with the goal of eventually settling on one that is to be the *best explanation+.