Yes, but i'm not sure how that follows from your original question.
What can you do with a bad explanation that you can't do with no explanation?
Deutsch specifies good explanations (laws of nature, scientific theories), and claims the rapid increase of good explanations is because of the invention of the scientific method, and thus explanations are essential for progress.
A bad explanation allows me to make (bad) sense of the world, which makes it appear less chaotic and threatening.
Ah yes, the spirits are causing the indigestion. Now I know that I need only do a specific dance to please them and the discomfort will resolve.
The alternative is suffering for no apparent reason or recourse. At least until we find a good explanation for indigestion.
I think I wasn't clear. An explanation that isn't accurate is still an explanation to Deutsch, it just isn't a good one. Microbiology or bread-spirits are both explanations for rising bread.
"Our ancestors followed many practices which work, but for which they had no explanation."
That would be very surprising for a species that reflexively attempts to explain things.
Also, in the book, he specifies that's he's explaining the unprecedented rate of consistent progress from the scientific revolution onward.
Edit: I was mistaken. He is trying to explain all progress.
Seven years later, would you modify this scheme?
Is there validity to the volume/consistency over intensity argument? Training 1/2 max reps every day vs going to failure 2-3 times week.
10 reps is your pull-up max.
Volume/consistency: 5 reps every day for 35 a week vs Intensity: 2-3 workouts for 20-30 reps a week.
Over a year that's 1820 vs 1040-1560.
Firas Zahabi outlines it here:
Recognizing the distractions. I'm struggling to come up with an idea on how to do this other than a form of awareness or attention meditation.
How did it go? Please share even if it didn't work out it could be helpful for others.