EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS I

1
EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS I

• An argument df. A set of claims consisting of
  reasons or premises which support the conclusion.
  (Both premises and conclusion are claims.)
• An explanation df. A claim or set of claims
  intended to make another claim, object, event, or
  state of affairs intelligible.
• MP Arguments try to show that something is, or
  will be, or should be the case. Explanations try
  to show how or why something is or will be.
• Even though there is this difference between
  them, explanations and arguments can resemble
  one another.
• MP We give an argument if we try to settle
  whether some claim is true. We propose an
  explanation if, instead, we try to explain what
  makes it true.

2
EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS II

• Reasons for confusing explanations and arguments
• 1. A person may not be clear herself whether she
  is arguing or explaining.
• 2. Language of the same or similar kind may be
  used in explanations and arguments.
• For instance, saying You should go see Smiths
  show at the Whitney since she is a terrific
  artist is an argument. Saying The reason that
  Smith got a show at the Whitney is that she is a
  terrific artist is an explanation.

3
EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS III

• Reasons for confusing explanations and arguments
  (continued)
• 3. The word explanation and its derivatives
  are themselves used in arguments.
• Thus Smith is a terrific artist, this explains
  why you should go see her show at the Whitney is
  an argument even though it contains the word
  explains.
• 4. Explanations are sometimes used in arguments
  or may even be used as arguments.
• Explaining how Smith achieves certain aesthetic
  effects through the use of color might form part
  of an argument for why you should go see her
  show, or it may itself consist of the argument
  for seeing her show.

4
EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS IV

• The same language might be seen as either an
  explanation or an argument or perhaps both.
• Whether it is better to call some particular
  language which can be seen as either an
  explanation or an argument one or the other
  depends on the context and interests of the
  people concerned with the language.
• In fact, the language might be offered as both
  an argument and as an explanation.
• For instance There is not a better contemporary
  painter than Smith. This is because of her
  inventive and exquisite use of color.

5
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS

• Some explanations are meant to justify certain
  things and others are not.
• When one attempts to justify an action one offers
  reasons for or arguments in favor of the action.
• An example of an explanation which is meant to
  justify an action is saying that the purpose of
  attacking a certain country is to stop the
  genocide being practiced by that country.
• An example of an explanation which is not meant
  to justify an action is attributing the causes of
  genocide to religious and cultural differences
  and centuries of mistrust and hatred.
• MP It does not follow that a person proposing
  explanations has any sympathy at all for the
  views or actions being explained. An explanation
  then can be entirely neutral.

6
PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS I

• A physical explanation df. An explanation that
  tells us how or why something happens in terms of
  the physical background of the event.
• Physical df. The subject matter of physics, and
  chemistry, geology, biology, neuroscience, and
  the other natural sciences. We look primarily to
  physics to tell us what matter is and how it
  behaves.
• The physical background df. A set of physical
  entities and conditions which include the general
  conditions under which something occurs, and
  includes whatever events are determined to be the
  direct or immediate cause of something.

7
PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS II

• The general conditions under which something
  occurs are normal physical conditions under which
  something happens, and, as such, are usually
  left unstated in an explanation if they are
  normal for the situation we simply take them for
  granted.
• For instance, general conditions of a candle
  lighting are that there is oxygen present, the
  air is relatively still, and the wick is dry.
• When looking for the direct or immediate cause of
  something we have to recognize that more than
  one chain of causes contributes to an events
  happening.
• In addition, our interests and knowledge also
  determine which link in a causal chain we
  identify as the cause of an event. (See home run
  example on page 228.)

8
PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS III

• MP Under normal circumstances a short
  explanation of the cause of an event or
  something may suffice.
• For instance, A leaky roof caused the stains on
  the ceiling.
• MP But under unusual circumstances, a more
  complete explanation may be required.
• For instance, The causes of the splatters and
  drips in the painting include gravity, thin, wet
  paint, the use of the wrist to flick or hurl
  paint and, to the extent to which they can be
  considered to be physical, the artists
  intentions as influenced by art history.

Jackson Pollack painting
9
MISTAKES REGARDING PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS I

• Although requiring that a causal chain be pushed
  back further and further will eventually reach a
  point at which it is unreasonable to ask for
  further causes, it is not easy to identify the
  precise point at which a demand to extend a
  causal chain becomes unreasonable.
• If a causal chain takes us too far afield from
  the original phenomenon then we are justified in
  bringing the search for further links to a
  halt.
• In addition, the causal chain can become so
  complex that sorting it out would make the
  explanation more involved than the original event
  justifies.
• Our search for further links in a causal chain
  are usually ended by our needs and interests.

10
MISTAKES REGARDING PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS II

• It is also a mistake in seeking causal
  explanations to expect a reason or motive behind
  a causal chain.
• Physical causes as physical do not include
  references to desires, intentions, goals, and
  the like.
• The idea here is that it is physics which tells
  us what the physical is, and that physics omits
  references to those things just listed. However,
  the metaphysics of materialism, as it concerns
  human actions, would include reference to such
  things, and would treat them as physical
  properties of a physical object, namely, the
  brain.

11
MISTAKES REGARDING PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS III

• It is also a mistake to give a physical
  explanation of something at the wrong technical
  level for our audience.
• MP A good explanation is always given at a
  level appropriate to the context in which it is
  given.
• Also, not all physical explanations deal with
  the causes of specific events. Rather, some
  explanations concern apparent regular
  occurrences in nature such as unsupported bodies
  falling.

12
BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS I

• Behavioral explanations df. Explanations that
  attempt to clarify the causes of behavior in
  terms of psychology, political science,
  sociology, history, economics, and the other
  behavioral and social sciences.
• This includes explanations in terms of someones
  reasons or motives.
• Behavioral explanations try to identify the
  immediate or direct cause of behavior, but may
  provide background information relevant to the
  behavior in addition to the proximate cause.
• In both of these respects, behavioral
  explanations are like physical explanations,
  except that here the causal background is of a
  historical nature and includes political,
  economic, social, or psychological factors.

13
BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS II

• As before with physical explanations, which
  factors are important in the causal background of
  behavioral explanations depends on our interests
  and knowledge, and one and the same event may
  have different explanations at the hands of
  psychologists, economists, and sociologists.
• MP It makes little sense to suppose that there
  is a single correct explanation of any instance
  of voluntary behavior.
• Not only do particular instances of behavior
  require explanation, but so do recurring patterns
  of behavior, and these need to be explained in
  terms of a theory.

14
BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS III

• Our theories of general patterns of behavior also
  apply to and affect the analysis of particular
  behavior.
• For instance, the Freudian theory of religious
  belief in general, if accepted by a psychologist,
  might be used as an explanation of the religious
  belief of a particular person.
• It is also important to note that which theories
  a researcher accepts will dictate in part what
  factors are considered to be relevant in
  explaining behavior.

15
BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS IV

• Human behavior is more complex and less
  predictable than physical occurrences in nature.
  Accordingly, we should expect more exceptions to
  generalizations about behavior than to statements
  about regular occurrences in nature.
• As a result, theories of the behavioral and
  social sciences will be less rigid, more
  qualified, and more probabilistic (and sometimes
  more philosophical) than many physical theories.
• This, however, is not automatically a defect in a
  behavioral explanation.

16
BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS V

• Behavioral explanations, like physical
  explanations, can also be pursued beyond a
  reasonable point, and, like physical
  explanations, should also be given at the
  technical level appropriate for a particular
  audience.
• Behavioral explanations which include a persons
  motives or reasons refer to the future, not to
  the past. In this respect they differ from
  physical explanations and other behavioral
  explanations.
• MP Explanations in terms of reasons and
  motives are forward-looking, not
  backward-looking.
• For instance, the answer to the question Why is
  Mary studying so hard? is that she wants to get
  a good grade on a forthcoming test.

17
FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATIONS I

• Functional explanation df. An explanation of an
  object or event in terms of its function or
  purpose.
• MP Ordinarily, a functional explanation
  requires putting the thing to be explained in a
  wider context and indicating its role in that
  context.
• For instance, the question What is art for?
  asks a question about the purpose of art, and so
  calls for a functional explanation. An answer
  might be The purpose of art is to provide
  aesthetic experience, or Art is meant to give
  insight into the human condition. The wider
  context of each answer is human reality, and each
  answer indicates the role of art within that
  wider context.

18
FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATIONS II

• MP An objects actual function may be
  different from its originally intended function,
  if indeed any function was ever intended for it.
• For instance, a snow shovel comes to be
  understood to be a work of art, a screw driver is
  used as a paper weight, or a rock is used as a
  weapon.
• Something can have more than one function, such
  as a computer.
• For a functional explanation to be useful, it
  must be given in terms of the correct context.

Marcel Duchamp, 1915 In Advance of the Broken Arm
19
FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATIONS III

• Functional explanations can be simple or
  complicated, for instance a screwdriver versus a
  computer.
• MP The function or purpose of many things
  (maybe all things) is determined by the reasons
  and motives of human beings.
• Accordingly, for any behavioral explanation that
  refers to an agents reasons or motives, you can
  usually find close at hand a functional
  explanation that refers to somethings purpose or
  function.
• For instance, Jane makes art because of the
  insight which her work gives her into herself.
  Thus, Janes art is to provide personal insight
  (functional explanation referring to the purpose
  of her art), and the desire for that personal
  insight is why Jane makes art (the reason/motive
  explanation behind the behavior which results in
  the work).

20
FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATIONS IV

• MP It is not inaccurate to think of a
  reasons/motive explanation as a sort of
  functional explanation of an instance of
  behavior.
• Thus, Janes reason for engaging in the action of
  making art is to produce work through which she
  gains greater personal insight, and that
  motivation can be seen as a functional
  explanation of her behavior, or as an answer to
  the question Why does Jane make art?
• In this example of Janes making art, we have
  seen functional explanations concern both the
  work of art made its function or purpose and
  reason or motive behind the making of the work.
• A good explanation of something may require more
  than one kind of explanation, and combining
  explanations of different kinds may give us the
  best understanding of what we are trying to
  explain.

21
TESTABILITY I

• MP An explanation must be subject to testing.
• MP If there is no way to test an explanation
  for correctness, then there is no way to know
  whether or not it is in fact correct.
• MP An account of something that cannot be
  verified or refuted under any circumstances is
  one that should be viewed with suspicion.
• MP Some untestable explanations are known as
  rubber explanations (or ad hoc hypotheses) in
  that they can stretch around any objection.

22
TESTABILITY II

• MP The only reason offered for believing an
  untestable explanation is the presence of the
  phenomenon it was produced to explain since no
  other evidence can be brought to bear on it.
• For instance, saying that the world is held up by
  an invisible turtle, is an untestable explanation
  of why the earth does not fall through space.
  Because, by the very nature of the explanation,
  it is untestable, it is an example of a rubber or
  ad hoc explanation.
• The untestability of an explanation is not the
  same thing as the difficulty of a testing
  explanation. The fact that an explanation is
  difficult or even very difficult to test does not
  mean that it is not a good one.

23
TESTABILITY III

• A claim or an explanation which cannot be tested,
  even in theory, is in general not a good
  explanation.
• For instance, a person may claim to be a psychic
  and so offer her psychic powers as an explanation
  of her ability to forecast events. However, when
  an independent group of scientists asks to test
  her powers of prediction, she explains that her
  psychic powers cannot be tested in an
  experimental situation because, in the presence
  of skeptics, her powers disappear.
• MP Another cause for suspicion is the
  substitution of a new, less vulnerable
  explanation for a previous explanation that is
  giving way under attack.
• For instance, someone might say that the cause of
  cancer is an evil demon. If asked why medical
  researchers have no evidence of such a demon, the
  person says that the demon cannot be detected by
  medical research.

24
NONCIRCULARITY

• A circular explanation df. An explanation which
  restates the phenomenon it is supposed to
  explain.
• A circular explanation looks like an explanation
  but is really not since it simply describes the
  phenomenon it is supposed to explain in different
  words.
• Thus, in a circular explanation the phenomenon
  and its explanation are the same thing.
• For instance, saying that some medication which
  causes sleep works because of its dormitive
  properties is a circular explanation since
  dormitive simply means causing sleep.

25
RELEVANCE

• MP An explanation has to connect somehow with
  the thing or event being explained. An
  explanation of something which does not so
  connect to that thing is irrelevant.
• For instance, saying that the water in a
  particular lake freezes because the trees which
  surround it drop their leaves is an irrelevant
  explanation.
• MP An explanation is relevant to the extent
  that it enables us to predict the phenomenon it
  explains with some degree of confidence.
• For instance, explaining that water freezes
  because of its temperature reaching a certain
  level should allow us to predict that a
  particular body of water will freeze if it is
  lowered to a certain temperature.

26
VAGUENESS AND RELIABILITY

• An explanation which is too vague is not an
  explanation.
• For instance, saying that Dadaism was due to the
  Dadaists taking a peculiar attitude towards art
  and life in general does not adequately account
  for its genesis in art history. Peculiar means
  strange or odd but these are vague terms, and
  we would immediately want to ask Strange in
  what way?
• An unreliable explanation df. An explanation
  which leads to predictions which turn out to be
  false.
• For instance, someone maintains that the
  scratching sounds heard at the back door are due
  to a burglar trying to break in, but you check
  and instead of finding a burglar, find that the
  strong wind blowing has caused a tree branch to
  scrape across the door.

27
EXPLANATORY POWER AND UNNECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS

• The more phenomena that an explanation explains,
  the better it is. This criterion of worth is
  especially important in scientific explanations.
  Thus, of two explanations, x and y, if x explains
  more than y then it is to be preferred.
• The fewer assumptions which an explanation
  requires the better it is. Thus, of two
  explanations, x and y, if x contains fewer
  assumptions than y then it is to be preferred.
  (Less is more.) Ockhams razor df. Entities are
  not to be multiplied beyond necessity.
• Also, an explanation which does not contain or
  refer to a dubious entity or unusual event is to
  be preferred to one which does. Thus the more an
  explanation agrees with our background
  information the better or at least more initially
  plausible it is. (See example on page 241.)

28
CONSISTENCY WITH WELL-ESTABLISHED THEORY

• Scientific theories are not written in stone, but
  may be updated or even discarded in light of the
  progress of science.
• For instance, an old theory may not explain new
  data, or a new theory might explain the same data
  with fewer assumptions and with greater accuracy.
• However, very powerful reasons or evidence are
  required for a well-established theory to be
  overthrown. Accordingly, if an explanation
  conflicts with a well-established theory we have
  good reason to look for an alternative account.
• For instance, a creationist account of the origin
  of species should be regarded with suspicion,
  since the evolution of species is as
  well-documented as anything we have in science.

29
ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

• When attempting to explain something, plausible
  alternative explanations should be considered.
• This becomes more important the more the
  phenomena which one is attempting to explain are
  complex, novel, or both.
• One must also be careful to observe if there is a
  causal connection between the explanation and the
  phenomenon being explained.

30
EXPLANATORY COMPARISONS I

• An explanatory comparison df. A comparison of
  some thing x to some other thing y so that y is
  used to explain x.
• For instance, we might try to explain Thai
  cuisine (x) to someone by saying that it is like
  Chinese food (y) in certain relevant respects.
• Explanatory comparisons are also known as
  analogies.
• Two items compared do not have to resemble one
  another in some precise number of respects for
  the comparison to be correct. Nor do the
  resemblances have to be exact.

31
EXPLANATORY COMPARISONS II

• In an explanatory comparison we look for the
  greatest number of close resemblances and the
  shortest list of important differences.
• MP In general, our success in getting the idea
  across to our audience through the use of
  comparison is more important than the
  correctness of our comparison.
• This is especially true when the features of the
  items compared are vague, complicated, or
  numerous.

32
EXPLANATORY COMPARISONS III

• MP Only a person who is familiar with both
  terms x and y, or what is being explained and
  the comparison used to explain it is in a
  position to evaluate it.
• MP The individual for whom the comparison is
  made, because he or she is familiar with only one
  term of the comparison is in a position to
  determine only if his or her new understanding
  makes sense, not whether it is accurate with
  regard to the phenomenon at issue.
• Thus a person who is familiar with Chinese but
  not Thai cuisine can only understand a comparison
  of Thai to Chinese, but cant determine the
  accuracy of the comparison until he or she tastes
  Thai.

33
EXPLANATORY COMPARISONS IV

• A comparison of one thing to another can be
  metaphorical rather than literal, as when
  Shakespeare likens life to a tale told by an
  idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
  nothing, or when Woody Allen says that being
  dead for 200 years is like spending a weekend in
  Beverly Hills.
• A comparison may also be meant to illustrate
  rather than to explain something.
• For instance, saying I would rather watch rain
  evaporate from a sidewalk than watch NASCAR
  illustrates that the person who says this has no
  interest in stock car racing, but does not
  explain that lack of interest.
• In such an illustrative, non-explanatory
  comparison, the comparison itself is less
  important than the point that is implicit in it,
  and besides conveying information, they are
  intended to express or evoke an attitude by means
  of their colorful language.