<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>To Explain or to Predict? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.0891/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.0891/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>To Explain or to Predict? — mentioned by ModelTheorist12</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270960</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1101.0891:21270960</guid><pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:50:25 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being &amp;quot;acceptable error rate&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;The Earth is flat&amp;quot; may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me. This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by this paper &amp;quot;To explain or to predict&amp;quot; ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf )&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.0891/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>stat.ME</category></item></channel></rss>
