"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." (Ptolemy, "Almagest", cca. 150)
"Science is reduction. Mathematics is its ideal, its form par excellence, for it is in mathematics that assimilation, identification, is most perfectly realized. The universe, scientifically explained, would be a certain formula, one and eternal, regarded as the equivalent of the entire diversity and movement of things." (Émile Boutroux, "Natural law in Science and Philosophy", 1914)
"The preliminary examination of most data is facilitated by the use of diagrams. Diagrams prove nothing, but bring outstanding features readily to the eye; they are therefore no substitutes for such critical tests as may be applied to the data, but are valuable in suggesting such tests, and in explaining the conclusions founded upon them." (Sir Ronald A Fisher, "Statistical Methods for Research Workers", 1925)
"To say that observations of the past are certain, whereas predictions are merely probable, is not the ultimate answer to the question of induction; it is only a sort of intermediate answer, which is incomplete unless a theory of probability is developed that explains what we should mean by ‘probable’ and on what ground we can assert probabilities." (Hans Reichenbach, "The Rise of Scientific Philosophy", 1951
"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work" (John Von Neumann, "Method in the Physical Sciences", 1955)
"Theories are usually introduced when previous study of a class of phenomena has revealed a system of uniformities. […] Theories then seek to explain those regularities and, generally, to afford a deeper and more accurate understanding of the phenomena in question. To this end, a theory construes those phenomena as manifestations of entities and processes that lie behind or beneath them, as it were." (Carl G Hempel, "Philosophy of Natural Science", 1966)
"There are different levels of organization in the occurrence of events. You cannot explain the events of one level in terms of the events of another. For example, you cannot explain life in terms of mechanical concepts, nor society in terms of individual psychology. Analysis can only take you down the scale of organization. It cannot reveal the workings of things on a higher level. To some extent the holistic philosophers are right." (Anatol Rapoport, "General Systems" Vol. 14, 1969)
"Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them." (Stephen J Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory", 1981)
"In all scientific fields, theory is frequently more important than experimental data. Scientists are generally reluctant to accept the existence of a phenomenon when they do not know how to explain it. On the other hand, they will often accept a theory that is especially plausible before there exists any data to support it." (Richard Morris, 1983)
"There is a universality about mathematics; what was created to explain one phenomenon is very often later found to be useful in explaining other, apparently unrelated, phenomena. Theories that were developed to explain some poorly measured effects are often found to fit later, much more accurate measurements. Furthermore, from measurements over a limited range the theory is often found to fit a far wider range. Finally, and perhaps most unreasonably, quite regularly from the mathematics alone new phenomena, previously unknown and unsuspected, are successfully predicted. This universality of mathematics could, of course, be a reflection of the way the human mind works and not of the external world, but most people believe it reflects reality." (Richard W Hamming, "Methods of Mathematics Applied to Calculus, Probability, and Statistics", 1985)
"The dynamics of any system can be explained by showing the relations between its parts and the regularities of their interactions so as to reveal its organization. For us to fully understand it, however, we need not only to see it as a unity operating in its internal dynamics, but also to see it in its circumstances, i.e., in the context to which its operation connects it. This understanding requires that we adopt a certain distance for observation, a perspective that in the case of historical systems implies a reference to their origin. This can be easy, for instance, in the case of man-made machines, for we have access to every detail of their manufacture. The situation is not that easy, however, as regards living beings: their genesis and their history are never directly visible and can be reconstructed only by fragments." (Humberto Maturana, "The Tree of Knowledge", 1987)
"A model is generally more believable if it can predict what will happen, rather than 'explain' something that has already occurred." (James R Thompson, "Empirical Model Building", 1989)
"It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only ‘true’ for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain the view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations." (Jim Baggott, "The Meaning of Quantum Theory", 1992)
"The word theory, as used in the natural sciences, doesn’t mean an idea tentatively held for purposes of argument - that we call a hypothesis. Rather, a theory is a set of logically consistent abstract principles that explain a body of concrete facts. It is the logical connections among the principles and the facts that characterize a theory as truth. No one element of a theory [...] can be changed without creating a logical contradiction that invalidates the entire system. Thus, although it may not be possible to substantiate directly a particular principle in the theory, the principle is validated by the consistency of the entire logical structure." (Alan Cromer, "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science", 1993)
"Jargon and complex methodology have their place. But true professional jargon is merely a shorthand way of speaking. Distrust any jargon that cannot be translated into plain English. Sophisticated methods can bring unique insights, but they can also be used to cover inadequate data and thinking. Good analysts can explain their methods in simple, direct terms. Distrust anyone who can't make clear how they have treated the data." (Herbert F Spirer et al, "Misused Statistics" 2nd Ed, 1998)
"Models can be viewed and used at three levels. The first is a model that fits the data. A test of goodness-of-fit operates at this level. This level is the least useful but is frequently the one at which statisticians and researchers stop. For example, a test of a linear model is judged good when a quadratic term is not significant. A second level of usefulness is that the model predicts future observations. Such a model has been called a forecast model. This level is often required in screening studies or studies predicting outcomes such as growth rate. A third level is that a model reveals unexpected features of the situation being described, a structural model, [...] However, it does not explain the data." (Gerald van Belle, "Statistical Rules of Thumb", 2002)
"A scientific theory is a concise and coherent set of concepts, claims, and laws (frequently expressed mathematically) that can be used to precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena." (Mordechai Ben-Ari, "Just a Theory: Exploring the Nature of Science", 2005)
"The difference between human dynamics and data mining boils down to this: Data mining predicts our behaviors based on records of our patterns of activity; we don't even have to understand the origins of the patterns exploited by the algorithm. Students of human dynamics, on the other hand, seek to develop models and theories to explain why, when, and where we do the things we do with some regularity." (Albert-László Barabási, "Bursts: The Hidden Pattern Behind Everything We Do", 2010)
"What is so unconventional about the statistical way of thinking? First, statisticians do not care much for the popular concept of the statistical average; instead, they fixate on any deviation from the average. They worry about how large these variations are, how frequently they occur, and why they exist. [...] Second, variability does not need to be explained by reasonable causes, despite our natural desire for a rational explanation of everything; statisticians are frequently just as happy to pore over patterns of correlation. [...] Third, statisticians are constantly looking out for missed nuances: a statistical average for all groups may well hide vital differences that exist between these groups. Ignoring group differences when they are present frequently portends inequitable treatment. [...] Fourth, decisions based on statistics can be calibrated to strike a balance between two types of errors. Predictably, decision makers have an incentive to focus exclusively on minimizing any mistake that could bring about public humiliation, but statisticians point out that because of this bias, their decisions will aggravate other errors, which are unnoticed but serious. [...] Finally, statisticians follow a specific protocol known as statistical testing when deciding whether the evidence fits the crime, so to speak. Unlike some of us, they don’t believe in miracles. In other words, if the most unusual coincidence must be contrived to explain the inexplicable, they prefer leaving the crime unsolved." (Kaiser Fung, "Numbers Rule the World", 2010)
"Black Swans (capitalized) are large-scale unpredictable and irregular events of massive consequence - unpredicted by a certain observer, and such un - predictor is generally called the 'turkey' when he is both surprised and harmed by these events. [...] Black Swans hijack our brains, making us feel we 'sort of' or 'almost' predicted them, because they are retrospectively explainable. We don’t realize the role of these Swans in life because of this illusion of predictability. […] An annoying aspect of the Black Swan problem - in fact the central, and largely missed, point - is that the odds of rare events are simply not computable." (Nassim N Taleb, "Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder", 2012)
"Statistical models in the social sciences rely on correlations, generally not causes, of our behavior. It is inevitable that such models of reality do not capture reality well. This explains the excess of false positives and false negatives." (Kaiser Fung, "Numbersense: How To Use Big Data To Your Advantage", 2013
"We are hardwired to make sense of the world around us - to notice patterns and invent theories to explain these patterns. We underestimate how easily patterns can be created by inexplicable random events - by good luck and bad luck." (Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations", 2014)
"When data is not normal, the reason the formulas are working is usually the central limit theorem. For large sample sizes, the formulas are producing parameter estimates that are approximately normal even when the data is not itself normal. The central limit theorem does make some assumptions and one is that the mean and variance of the population exist. Outliers in the data are evidence that these assumptions may not be true. Persistent outliers in the data, ones that are not errors and cannot be otherwise explained, suggest that the usual procedures based on the central limit theorem are not applicable.
"System dynamics [...] uses models and computer simulations to understand behavior of an entire system, and has been applied to the behavior of large and complex national issues. It portrays the relationships in systems as feedback loops, lags, and other descriptors to explain dynamics, that is, how a system behaves over time. Its quantitative methodology relies on what are called 'stock-and-flow diagrams' that reflect how levels of specific elements accumulate over time and the rate at which they change. Qualitative systems thinking constructs evolved from this quantitative discipline." (Karen L Higgins, "Economic Growth and Sustainability: Systems Thinking for a Complex World", 2015)
"Traditionally, the only way to get a computer to do something - from adding two numbers to flying an airplane - was to write down an algorithm explaining how, in painstaking detail. But machine-learning algorithms, also known as learners, are different: they figure it out on their own, by making inferences from data. And the more data they have, the better they get. Now we don’t have to program computers; they program themselves." (Pedro Domingos, "The Master Algorithm", 2015)
"We are superb causal-hypothesis generators. Given an effect, we are rarely at a loss for an explanation. Seeing a difference in observations over time, we readily come up with a causal interpretation. Much of the time, no causality at all is going on - just random variation. The compulsion to explain is particularly strong when we habitually see that one event typically occurs in conjunction with another event. Seeing such a correlation almost automatically provokes a causal explanation. It’s tremendously useful to be on our toes looking for causal relationships that explain our world. But there are two problems: (1) The explanations come too easily. If we recognized how facile our causal hypotheses were, we’d place less confidence in them. (2) Much of the time, no causal interpretation at all is appropriate and wouldn’t even be made if we had a better understanding of randomness."
"The problem-solving view of intelligence helps explain the production of invariably narrow applications of AI throughout its history. Game playing, for instance, has been a source of constant inspiration for the development of advanced AI techniques, but games are simplifications of life that reward simplified views of intelligence. […] Treating intelligence as problem-solving thus gives us narrow applications." (Erik J Larson, "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do", 2021)
"Kernelized support vector machines are powerful models and perform well on a variety of datasets. SVMs allow for complex decision boundaries, even if the data has only a few features. They work well on low-dimensional and high-dimensional data (i.e., few and many features), but don’t scale very well with the number of samples. Running an SVM on data with up to 10,000 samples might work well, but working with datasets of size 100,000 or more can become challenging in terms of runtime and memory usage. Another downside of SVMs is that they require careful preprocessing of the data and tuning of the parameters. This is why, these days, most people instead use tree-based models such as random forests or gradient boosting (which require little or no pre‐ processing) in many applications. Furthermore, SVM models are hard to inspect; it can be difficult to understand why a particular prediction was made, and it might be tricky to explain the model to a nonexpert." (Andreas C Müller & Sarah Guido, "Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Data Scientists", 2017)
"A recurring theme in machine learning is combining predictions across multiple models. There are techniques called bagging and boosting which seek to tweak the data and fit many estimates to it. Averaging across these can give a better prediction than any one model on its own. But here a serious problem arises: it is then very hard to explain what the model is (often referred to as a 'black box'). It is now a mixture of many, perhaps a thousand or more, models." (Robert Grant, "Data Visualization: Charts, Maps and Interactive Graphics", 2019)
"I believe that the backlash against statistics is due to four primary reasons. The first, and easiest for most people to relate to, is that even the most basic concepts of descriptive and inferential statistics can be difficult to grasp and even harder to explain. […] The second cause for vitriol is that even well-intentioned experts misapply the tools and techniques of statistics far too often, myself included. Statistical pitfalls are numerous and tough to avoid. When we can't trust the experts to get it right, there's a temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The third reason behind all the hate is that those with an agenda can easily craft statistics to lie when they communicate with us […] And finally, the fourth cause is that often statistics can be perceived as cold and detached, and they can fail to communicate the human element of an issue."
"A data scientist should be able to wrangle, mung, manipulate, and consolidate datasets before performing calculations on that data that help us to understand it. Analysis is a broad term, but it's clear that the end result is knowledge of your dataset that you didn't have before you started, no matter how basic or complex. [...] A data scientist usually has to be able to apply statistical, mathematical, and machine learning models to data in order to explain it or perform some sort of prediction." (Andrew P McMahon, "Machine Learning Engineering with Python", 2021)
"In an era of machine learning, where data is likely to be used to train AI, getting quality and governance under control is a business imperative. Failing to govern data surfaces problems late, often at the point closest to users (for example, by giving harmful guidance), and hinders explainability (garbage data in, machine-learned garbage out)." (Jesús Barrasa et al, "Knowledge Graphs: Data in Context for Responsive Businesses", 2021)
"Exploiting semantic knowledge graphs can support interpretability and explainability of nearly all AI model types (including DL models) by discovering and depicting semantic and non-obvious relationships or depicting an ML model in a simplified and more readable, explainable way." (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)
"In Exploiting semantic knowledge graphs can support interpretability and explainability of nearly all AI model types (including DL models) by discovering and depicting semantic and non-obvious relationships or depicting an ML model in a simplified and more readable, explainable way., a Data Mesh solution organizes data around business domain owners and transforms relevant data assets (data sources) to data products that can be consumed by distributed business users from various business domains or functions. These data products are created, governed, and used in an autonomous, decentralized, and self-service manner. Self-service capabilities, which we have already referenced as a Data Fabric capability, enable business organizations to entertain a data marketplace with shopping-for-data characteristics." (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)
"Explainability refers to the ability to understand and articulate how AI models make decisions or generate outputs. Many AI models, particularly deep learning models, operate mysteriously, making it difficult to interpret their inner workings. This lack of clarity can raise ethical concerns, especially when AI decisions impact critical areas such as healthcare, finance, or law enforcement. It is essential to develop models that can be explained in understandable terms, ensuring that users and stakeholders can trust that the AI is making decisions based on clear, logical processes. Explainability is key to ensuring fairness, safety, and ethical use of AI." (Bennie Haelen, "ML and Generative AI in the Data Lakehouse Building and Deploying AI Applications at Scale", 2026)
