Explanation-based construction

Explanation-based decision making (Pennington and Hastie 1986, 1988) assumes that people begin their decision-making process by constructing a mental model that explains the facts they have received. While constructing this explanatory model, people are also assumed to be generating potential alternatives to choose between. The alternatives are then compared to the explanatory model, rather than to the facts from which it was constructed. 

Construct an explanation based on resonance arguments for your potential energy rank order in the previous question. (Note all three bases have two important resonance structures.)... 

The hydrogen atom, containing a single electron, has played a major role in the development of models of electronic structure. In 1913 Niels Bohr (1885-1962), a Danish physicist, offered a theoretical explanation of the atomic spectrum of hydrogen. His model was based largely on classical mechanics. In 1922 this model earned him the Nobel Prize in physics. By that time, Bohr had become director of the Institute of Theoretical Physics at Copenhagen. There he helped develop the new discipline of quantum mechanics, used by other scientists to construct a more sophisticated model for the hydrogen atom. 

In practice, most lifetime prediction is based on service experience. Depending on the industry concerned, this can take the form of planned examination of components at the end of their service life or be limited to the explanation of warranty returns. Experience with polymers is now sufficiently long for service experience to be a prime source of information for components with lifetimes of up to 35 years. The construction industry provides a good example of systematic listing of component lifetimes, related to minimum quality levels and modified according to the service conditions. The electrical industry applies statistical methods to life components and predict failures. This, however, strays into the general field of engineering component lifetimes. In this book we are concerned with materials rather than components. 

If unireactant enzyme behavior is not described adequately by existing equations, a reaction scheme should be constructed which seems to describe the behavior based on available experimental data. In doing so, Occam s razor should be applied and the simplest possible explanations should be first discounted before more complex explanations are proposed. 

At this point, it is appropriate to draw a parallel with the straightforward MO explanations for the aromaticity of benzene using approaches based on a single closed-shell Slater determinant, such as HMO and restricted Hartree-Fock (RWF), which also have no equivalent within more advanced multi-configuration MO constructions. The relevance of this comparison follows from the fact that aromaticity is a primary factor in at least one of the popular treatments of pericyclic reactions Within the Dewar-Zimmerman approach [4-6], allowed reactions are shown to pass through aromatic transition structures, and forbidden reactions have to overcome high-energy antiaromatic transition structures. 

It should also be mentioned here that many of the chemical reactions which have been "explained with the HSAB model (2) occur in polar solvents and many involve the formation of ionic species. Thermodynamic cycles can be constructed for these reactions which show how many different kinds of effects are operative. When one considers that much of the data involve rate constant and equilibrium constant measurements, the explanation of this data becomes even more complex for there are entropy terms as well as enthalpy terms for all the steps in any cycle that is constructed. Even less information is available concerning these steps than we had above for the coordination model yet explanations are offered based solely on one step (4) — the strength of the bonding. 

What are the empirical inductive laws on which thermodynamics rests For future reference, Table 2.1 lists the six general statements IL-l-IL-6 of observational experience on which the present exposition will be based. Several of these require additional definitions or explanations before they can be properly understood. Each will be introduced explicitly in the text as its definitional basis is properly laid and its logical role in the formal construction of the theory becomes apparent. 

The fourth and most powerful reason for science s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words, like young-earth creationists, they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior. 

The comparison of the GRID/GOLPE results with a ligand-based CoMFA model, (q loo value of 0.796) [60], indicated that the ligand alignment constructed on the basis of the receptor structure supplies a better explanation of the biological activities. This is also indicated by smaller deviations of the calculated from the experimental values in the receptor-based model [35]. 

---