Difference between revisions of "Form in Explanation"
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
Kyle: Well, maybe things aren’t what they appeared to be. I’ll look forward to meeting her at your parents’ house. | Kyle: Well, maybe things aren’t what they appeared to be. I’ll look forward to meeting her at your parents’ house. | ||
| + | How were you assessing the explanations in this dialogue as you read it? Did you arrive at the same conclusion as Kylie before Andy’s last speech? Along the way, did you doubt Andy’s explanation for not finding his girlfriend Friday afternoon? How do you appeal to “normal practices” to assess explanations like his? It would be normal for lots of couples to seek each other out on the weekend, especially if that had been their practice. What about cousin Darla? Did Andy’s explanation seem remotely plausible? If so, at what point? | ||
| − | + | If you were as suspicious as Kyle, you certainly had good reason. Andy was stammering, he didn’t volunteer much information and his behavior fell out of the normal pattern Kylie had become used to. Something needed explaining. The first thing to notice about explanations is that they arise out of real doubt about how something works, comes about, or fits together. Nothing needs explaining until someone starts wondering about things in one of these ways. So explanation starts with a psychological condition of doubt about the basis of our experience or belief. | |
| + | |||
| + | Andy's last speech probably reheved your suspicions. By the end of it. the most plausible explanation seemed to be that Andy is a somewhat awkward boyfriend who might have been completely innocent in going out with his cousin. He might have handled the situation better, but he doesn't seem so bad after all. But what made the difference? The fact that he had a plausible account of what Beth saw might have helped, but the fact that they are all getting together for Thanksgiving is probably the most important detail adding credibihty to Andy's story. That detail adds something that the most ordinary everyday explanations share with the most sophisticated scientific experients: a verifying experience. As soon as Andy mentioned that Kylie would meet Darla at Thanksgiving, his behavior on Friday and in the dialogue could be reinterpreted. Kylie might still be upset at Andy for his lack of sophistication, but she knows his story is going to have to check out. Unless his parents and other relatives are involved in a massive cover-up of his two-timing with Darla, the odds are that she's really his cousin. If you are a trusting sort, you probably just went along with this way of interpreting the story. Unfortunately, the truth is worse than the fiction. Andy was a rat. A week later he told KyUe that his parents got in a big fight and the Thanksgiving plans had changed. Kylie was pretty sure that was an excuse and, since he seemed aloof during that week, she decided to call him on it. He confessed to the whole thing. | ||
| − | If | + | If explanations usually start with doubt about how something works. came about, or fits together, they usually end with a verifying experience, or, in this case, the prospect of one. Verification, or testability, is not the same as proof, but under the right conditions it raises our confidence in the explanatory power of the account offered to such a degree that you just stop wondering about it. While we sometimes talk as though explanations begin with the search for truth and end with it's discovery, it is more precise to say that explanations begin with doubt and end with the cessation of doubt. Something could always reawaken doubt, as when Kyhe finds out that Andy's parents were divorced years ago and never remarried. When you stop doubting depends upon a lot of factors in the context of inquiry - how urgent the need for action is, what the "stakes" are, etc. Hopefully, we stop doubting when we have a rehable story in hand that we've tested or could test in experience. But whether our story is the absolute truth or not is much harder to say. In that sense, explanations are more hke inductive arguments which also aim at a "degree of confidence" in their conclusion. Good explanations offer the most probable account of how something works, comes about, or fits together. |
Revision as of 17:45, 29 December 2008
Form in Explanation
[On revision: Acknowledge goal of seeing form in reconstruction.]
Introduction
What does a famous philosopher hke Daniel Dennett and thousands of campfire and scouting kids have in common? They were all impressed by the following song when they were kids:
- Tell me why the stars do shine
- Tell me why the ivy twines
- Tell me why the sky’s so blue
- And I will tell you just why I love you
- Because God made the stars to shine
- Because God made the ivy twine
- Because God made the sky so blue
- Because God made you, that’s why I love you
One of the most poignant signs of the development of the reflective attitude in children is the asking of “Why?” questions. Why do the stars shine? Why is the sky blue? Why are we here?
In this chapter we are going to pick up more “tools of the trade” for leading a reflective life, specifically by learning more about explanations and the idea of “causation” that underhes them. Recall that explanations are rationales in which causes are offered to account for facts that we observe. Unlike arguments, explanations have conclusions that are not in doubt. We do not doubt that the stars shine or the sky is blue when we ask for an explanation of these facts. What we want in an explanation is an answer to the question “Why?” What counts as a good answer?
To see the difficulty of answering that “What” question, consider the tremendous variety of “Why” questions:
- Why is Mars red?
- Why do I feel the way I do?
- Wiiy ‘/ do $2000 bicycles weigh so little?
- Why does toast seem to land butter side down when you drop it?
- Why does the AIDS virus resist drug treatments?
- Why are humans so aggressive?
- Why did my friend treat me rudely the other day?
- Why do humans laugh?
- Why are some forms of poverty difficult to alleviate?
We ask for explanations about the mundane and the cosmic, about events in our personal hfe and the Ufe of our societies, about the present, past, and future. We can sometimes offer pretty rehable explanations with very little evidence and other times we can be drowning in data and not have even a promising hypothesis.
Explanation in Everyday Life and Science
In order to see how explanations are structured, we should look at two examples, one drawn from everyday life and the other from scientific explanation. We want to be able to see explanatory rationales in any context in which they arise. By noticing the similarities and differences between these two cases, you can begin to see the general structure of explanations.
‘’’Saturday Morning’’’
Kylie: So, Andy, where were you last night. I’ve been trying to call you. Why didn’t you have your cell phone on? Andy: Umm, well, I wanted to tell you about that. . . The thing is, um, I forgot to charge it up. Kyle: It’s just that we usually meet up on Friday after we are done with classes. I went to your room when I didn’t see you, but no one told me where you were. We’ve been seeing each other for three months now. I’m just surprised that’s all. Andy: Well, I had to meet a friend who came into town. Kyle: That’s funny. Later that night I ran into Beth who said you were with some woman who she didn’t recognize at Shenanigan’s Sports Bar. You hate sports bars. Why did you go there? Who were you with? Andy: Oh! Beth saw me there huh? Well, that’s what I needed to talk to you about. I mean, . . . (stammering). . . i wanted to call you and all, but I guess the time just got away from me. That was my cousin, Darla, She surprised me by coming here from the West side. She goes to school there, but I haven’t seen her for a while. She said she wanted to see her school’s team play and we had to find a sports bar showing it. I wasn’t trying to avoid you, but I was pretty sure you wouldn’t want to go there. It’s awfully loud and smoky. Kyle: Your cousin? Really? You’ve never mentioned her. Beth said you two were having a pretty good time. It sure didn’t occur to her to think you were with a relative based on what she saw. I’m glad I didn’t get in the way of your evening. To tell you the truth, Andy, I’m not sure I buy your explanation. You don’t sound so sure of it yourself. Andy: Well, it probably looked pretty suspicious. I mean, Darla dresses kind of differently. She really likes to show off a bit. And she’s always been pretty friendly. Beth probably made some reasonable inferences, but they don’t really explain what’s going on. I might have been a little embarrassed of bringing her around you, but I probably should have told her I needed to find you first. Besides, you’re going to meet her when you come to my folks’ house for Thanksgiving next month. My Aunt and Uncle and Darla always come over. Kyle: Well, maybe things aren’t what they appeared to be. I’ll look forward to meeting her at your parents’ house.
How were you assessing the explanations in this dialogue as you read it? Did you arrive at the same conclusion as Kylie before Andy’s last speech? Along the way, did you doubt Andy’s explanation for not finding his girlfriend Friday afternoon? How do you appeal to “normal practices” to assess explanations like his? It would be normal for lots of couples to seek each other out on the weekend, especially if that had been their practice. What about cousin Darla? Did Andy’s explanation seem remotely plausible? If so, at what point?
If you were as suspicious as Kyle, you certainly had good reason. Andy was stammering, he didn’t volunteer much information and his behavior fell out of the normal pattern Kylie had become used to. Something needed explaining. The first thing to notice about explanations is that they arise out of real doubt about how something works, comes about, or fits together. Nothing needs explaining until someone starts wondering about things in one of these ways. So explanation starts with a psychological condition of doubt about the basis of our experience or belief.
Andy's last speech probably reheved your suspicions. By the end of it. the most plausible explanation seemed to be that Andy is a somewhat awkward boyfriend who might have been completely innocent in going out with his cousin. He might have handled the situation better, but he doesn't seem so bad after all. But what made the difference? The fact that he had a plausible account of what Beth saw might have helped, but the fact that they are all getting together for Thanksgiving is probably the most important detail adding credibihty to Andy's story. That detail adds something that the most ordinary everyday explanations share with the most sophisticated scientific experients: a verifying experience. As soon as Andy mentioned that Kylie would meet Darla at Thanksgiving, his behavior on Friday and in the dialogue could be reinterpreted. Kylie might still be upset at Andy for his lack of sophistication, but she knows his story is going to have to check out. Unless his parents and other relatives are involved in a massive cover-up of his two-timing with Darla, the odds are that she's really his cousin. If you are a trusting sort, you probably just went along with this way of interpreting the story. Unfortunately, the truth is worse than the fiction. Andy was a rat. A week later he told KyUe that his parents got in a big fight and the Thanksgiving plans had changed. Kylie was pretty sure that was an excuse and, since he seemed aloof during that week, she decided to call him on it. He confessed to the whole thing.
If explanations usually start with doubt about how something works. came about, or fits together, they usually end with a verifying experience, or, in this case, the prospect of one. Verification, or testability, is not the same as proof, but under the right conditions it raises our confidence in the explanatory power of the account offered to such a degree that you just stop wondering about it. While we sometimes talk as though explanations begin with the search for truth and end with it's discovery, it is more precise to say that explanations begin with doubt and end with the cessation of doubt. Something could always reawaken doubt, as when Kyhe finds out that Andy's parents were divorced years ago and never remarried. When you stop doubting depends upon a lot of factors in the context of inquiry - how urgent the need for action is, what the "stakes" are, etc. Hopefully, we stop doubting when we have a rehable story in hand that we've tested or could test in experience. But whether our story is the absolute truth or not is much harder to say. In that sense, explanations are more hke inductive arguments which also aim at a "degree of confidence" in their conclusion. Good explanations offer the most probable account of how something works, comes about, or fits together.
