Skip to main content
Log in

When good theories make bad predictions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chaos-related obstructions to predictability have been used to challenge accounts of theory validation based on the agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental data (Rueger & Sharp, 1996. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 93–112; Koperski, 1998. Philosophy of Science, 40, 194–212). These challenges are incomplete in two respects: (a) they do not show that chaotic regimes are unpredictable in principle (i.e., with unbounded resources) and, as a result, that there is something conceptually wrong with idealized expectations of correct predictions from acceptable theories, and (b) they do not explore whether chaos-induced predictive failures of deterministic models can be remedied by stochastic modeling. In this paper we appeal to an asymptotic analysis of state space trajectories and their numerical approximations to show that chaotic regimes are deterministically unpredictable even with unbounded resources. Additionally, we explain why stochastic models of chaotic systems, while predictively successful in some cases, are in general predictively as limited as deterministic ones. We conclude by suggesting that the way in which scientists deal with such principled obstructions to predictability calls for a more comprehensive approach to theory validation, on which experimental testing is augmented by a multifaceted mathematical analysis of theoretical models, capable of identifying chaos-related predictive failures as due to principled limitations which the world itself imposes on any less-than-omniscient epistemic access to some natural systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abarbanel H.D.I. (1996). Analysis of observed chaotic data. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R. (2001). The devil in the details: Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction and emergence. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterman R. (1993). Defining chaos. Philosophy of Science 60, 43–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger A. (2001). Chaos and chance, an introduction to stochastic aspects of dynamics. Walter de Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockwell P.J., Davis R.A. (2002). An introduction to time series and forecasting. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J.R. (1976). Ergodic theory and topolgical dynamics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown R., Chua L.O. (1998). Clarifying chaos II: Bernoulli chaos, zero lyapunov exponents and strange attractors. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 8, 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Costa N.C.A., Doria F.A. (1992). On the incompleteness of axiomatized models for the empirical sciences. Philosophica 50, 87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaney R. (1989). An introduction to chaotic dynamical systems (2nd edn). Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Humieres D., Beasley M.R., Huberman B., Libchaber A. (1982). Chaotic states and routes to chaos in the forced pendulum. Physical Review A 26, 3483–3496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downey, R. G., & Hirschfeldt, D. (2004). Algorithmic randomness and complexity, e-manuscript, http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/∼downey

  • Eckmann J.-P. Ruelle D. (1985). Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors. Review of Modern Physics, 50, 617–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander F.G. (1982). Introduction to the theory of distributions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershenfeld N. (1988). An experimentalist’s introduction to the observation of dynamical systems. In: Hao B.L.(Eds). Directions in chaos. World Scientific, New Jersey, pp. 310–382

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Miranda J.M. (2004). Synchronization and control of chaos. Imperial College Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt D.L., Holt R.G.(1993). Regularity in nonlinear dynamical systems. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44, 711–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu C.S. (1987). Cell-to-cell mapping: A method of global analysis for non-linear systems. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt G.M.K. (1987) Determinism, predictability and chaos. Analysis 47, 129–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koperski J. (1998). Models, confirmation and chaos. Philosophy of Science 65, 624–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krylov N., Bogoliubov N. (1937) La theorie generale de la measure dans son application a l’etude des systemes dynamiques de la mechanique non lineare. Annals of Mathematics 38, 65–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasota A., Mackey M.C. (1994). Chaos, fractals and noise, stochastic aspects of dynamics (2nd ed). Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Li M., Vitanyi P.M. (1997). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (2nd ed). Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Martelli M., Dang M., Seph T. (1998). Defining chaos. Mathematics Magazine 71, 112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May R.M. (1974). Biological populations with non-overlapping generations: stable points, stable cycles, and chaos. Science 186, 645–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore C. (1991). Generalized shifts: Unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems. Nonlinearity 4, 199–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson C. (1999). Dynamical systems, stability, symbolic dynamics and chaos (2nd ed). CRC Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueger A., Sharp W.D. (1996). Simple theories of a messy world: truth and explanatory power in nonlinear dynamics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruelle D. (1994) Where can one hope to profitably apply the ideas of chaos?. Physics Today 47, 24–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz L. (1973). Thèorie des distributions. Hermann, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinai Ya. G. (1972). Gibbs measures in ergodic theory. Russian Mathematical Surveys 27, 21–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar L. (1973). Statistical explanation and ergodic theory. Philosophy of Science 40, 194–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P. (1998). Explaining chaos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Solovay R.M. (2000). A version of Ω for which ZFC can not predict a single bit. In Calude C.S., Paun G.(Eds). Finite versus infinite contributions to an eternal dilemma. Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 323–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Steeb W.H., Van Wyk M.A. (1997). Chaos in electronics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone M. (1989) Chaos, prediction and Laplacean determinism. American Philosophical Quarterly 26, 123–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Takens F. (1981). Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In: Rand D.A., Young L.-S.(Eds). Dyamical systems and turbulence. Warwick 1980, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics vol. 898, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 366–381

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turing A. (1937). On computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 43, 544–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winnie J.A. (1992). Computable Chaos. Philosophy of Science 59, 263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan G., Yorke J.A. (2000). Collapsing of chaos in one dimensional maps. Physica D, 136, 18–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young L.-S. (1986). Stochastic stability of hyperbolic attractors. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 6, 311–319

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vadim Batitsky.

Additional information

We give special thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that have substantially contributed to the final version of this paper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batitsky, V., Domotor, Z. When good theories make bad predictions. Synthese 157, 79–103 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9033-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9033-0

Keywords

Navigation