Can we ever fully explain anything?
***
Is there any such thing as an “explanation” of anything, or do we just have dense descriptions which, with familiarity, create an illusion of understanding?
When we know a lot about something we tend to think we understand it. But often, when you analyse information which seems to be explanatory you find it is simply a a whole lot of facts about the thing you want to understand - enough to make you feel satisfied (until you do the analysis!) that there is nothing left to know.
Eg: what passes for an explanation might go like this:
- Q: Why do objects not travel straight through space?
- A: because gravity curves space
- Q: How do we know.?
- A: General relativity describes it
- Q: but how do we know general relativity is correct?
- A: It is mathematically proven and we have empirical evidence too - it predicts the behaviour of objects accurately.
This sounds good on the surface, but all it has done is replace a mystery with a model which can be used to predict things it doesn’t “explain” anything. Yet this is where we tend to stop asking questions. Armed with a satisfying verbal formula we feel we now “understand” why things don’t travel in a straight line in a gravitational field.
A lot of science works this way:
- psychology can be “explained” by biology
- Biology by chemistry
- Chemistry by physics,
But however detailed the causal description there always seems to be a “why” that is unanswered.
Discussion
Part 1
Things to consider:
- Can you think of an “explanation” for something which does not leave room for additional enquiry? Even if all the “what” and “hows” are covered, is there still a “why?” In the why-do-objects-not-travel-straight example, for instance does it tell us why gravity affects spacetime?
- Should we (a) content ourselves with models of things providing they fulfil our practical needs or (b) should we keep asking the next “why”, whether or not it seems profitable to do so?
- Some people seem to prefer not to go on asking why. Are they wiser than those who can’t stop, or are some people limited*,* cognitively or psychologically*,* in their ability to “go deep”?
- What about the concept of “dangerous” or “forbidden” knowledge? Is the story of being thrown out of the Garden of Eden a warning to heed (you can’t send the knowledge of how to make a nuclear bomb back into the unknown) or - more often - is it used as an attempt by those in the know to stop the rest of us from knowing too?
Part 2:
There is a practical aspect to this issue. In the UK (and probably many other countries) schools and universities have been increasingly pressured by Governments to encourage the teaching of practical knowledge rather than encouraging blue-sky thinking and purely intellectual pursuit. In Universities this has led to the closure of many departments which do not offer obvious, measurable vocational qualifications.
Things to consider:
- Should we encourage children to ask endless “whys” or concentrate on teaching them just enough to be useful?
- If you think we should do both, have we got the balance right? If not, how should it be adjusted?
- What are the long-term social implications of one or another approach? Does increased knowledge necessarily produce increased wellbeing?
Homework: (thank you Claude!)
Carl Hempel developed the deductive-nomological model tries to reduce explanation to a special kind of description (one that invokes laws),
Wesley Salmon thought that explanation adds causal-mechanical information — a description tells you what happened, but an explanation traces the actual physical processes. See his Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World (1984).
James Woodward’. argues that what distinguishes explanation from mere description is invariance under intervention — explanatory relationships are ones that would hold up if you were to manipulate the relevant variables. See Making Things Happen (2003).
Bas van Fraassen argues that explanation is partly pragmatic — what counts as an explanation depends on the question being asked and the context, the "contrast class." This pushes back against the idea that explanation is purely a matter of objective structure in the world. The Scientific Image (1980).
Kareem Khalifa distinguishes between having an explanation and genuinely understanding something’. See Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge, 2017.
PiPs is part of a national movement to encourage people to think about some of the 'big ideas' in life. No expertise necessary, only the desire to do what Wittgenstein described as 'untangling the knots in the way we think about things'.
It is a collective activity, not a debating club.
Everyone attending, and there is often a wide range of people present, is encouraged to listen to and engage with the topic. We hope it is fun and provides plenty of food for thought.
The organisers are trying to find ways to collect money from attendees towards the costs of running the sessions, mostly the costs of using this Meetup site. One of the organisers has something on their phone that can take card payments. Suggested amount? Just a few quid now and again for regulars. For anyone turning up for the first time, it's free.
