Scientific Explanation

[aleph_0]

His account of explanation has been attacked pretty solidly, and he has since revised--then his revision was attacked, and he has no largely capitulated on the subject of scientific explanation. My version, I admit, borrows heavily from his, though.

[Mindy]

I hoped there would be more discussion of what explanation consists in. My at-hand dictionary says it is to make something plain. What needs to be made plain? Well, whatever is confused or complicated, has hidden aspects, or seems to contradict accepted tenets, etc. A magic trick needs explaining. What happened is not clear, not plain, something else seems to have happened.

I think this means explanation is essentially a matter of analysis. In explaining the magic trick, you are taking individual motions of the hands, etc., and identifying a second aspect of that motion, how when the magician seemed to flourish the deck, he was tossing it away and getting the hidden deck from his sleeve... (not an actual explanation...) The analysis (in this case) cross-classifies elements or aspects of the thing to be explained.

To explain osmosis, you refer to the operation of diffusion in the presence of a semi-permeable membrane. Diffusion is a known phenomenon of materials, and semi-permeable membranes are known structures of the body. Osmosis, then, explains the toxicity of certain extreme levels of normal substances--salt, for example. Diffusion isn't toxic, and our membranes aren't, and salt is necessary to life. But too little salt and too much salt are both toxic, and both act via osmosis, causing cell death. Diffusion drives both toxic effects. This requires an explanation, the same thing having different effects.

The new classifications are explanatory iff they assimilate the thing to be explained to pre-established rules, laws, or categories.

-- Mindy

[Vik]

I think this means explanation is essentially a matter of analysis. In explaining the magic trick, you are taking individual motions of the hands, etc., and identifying a second aspect of that motion, how when the magician seemed to flourish the deck, he was tossing it away and getting the hidden deck from his sleeve... (not an actual explanation...) The analysis (in this case) cross-classifies elements or aspects of the thing to be explained.

To explain osmosis, you refer to the operation of diffusion in the presence of a semi-permeable membrane. Diffusion is a known phenomenon of materials, and semi-permeable membranes are known structures of the body. Osmosis, then, explains the toxicity of certain extreme levels of normal substances--salt, for example. Diffusion isn't toxic, and our membranes aren't, and salt is necessary to life. But too little salt and too much salt are both toxic, and both act via osmosis, causing cell death. Diffusion drives both toxic effects. This requires an explanation, the same thing having different effects.

The new classifications are explanatory iff they assimilate the thing to be explained to pre-established rules, laws, or categories.

-- Mindy

Quantitative differences are often used to "explain" qualitative ones. But these merely describe what happens to certain entities at such and such quantities.

The law concerning osmotic pressure *describes* the pressure associated with the number of ions present but it does not tell us *why* the ions "exert" the pressure.

An explanation succeeds in explaining some effect (action, event, phenomenon, etc.) when it shows how the effect necessarily follows from facts concerning how certain entities operate under certain conditions.

For a proper explanation, you need to talk about physical interaction. What we call an "effect" IS entity-action. But also consider the constitutive properties (such as structure) of the entities and the potentials made possible by those properties. After all, your grasp of nature is much more than a loose network of associated quantities.

[Mindy]

Quantitative differences are often used to "explain" qualitative ones. But these merely describe what happens to certain entities at such and such quantities.

The law concerning osmotic pressure *describes* the pressure associated with the number of ions present but it does not tell us *why* the ions "exert" the pressure.

An explanation succeeds in explaining some effect (action, event, phenomenon, etc.) when it shows how the effect necessarily follows from facts concerning how certain entities operate under certain conditions.

For a proper explanation, you need to talk about physical interaction. What we call an "effect" IS entity-action. But also consider the constitutive properties (such as structure) of the entities and the potentials made possible by those properties. After all, your grasp of nature is much more than a loose network of associated quantities.

"Why" the ions exert pressure is explained by diffusion, as I said. Are not the prestidigitations of a magician "physical interaction?" Effects are not explained by using jargon such as "entity-action." If window glass is broken by a baseball, you would probably insist that the glass "broke," because that fits your "entity-action" format. It doesn't add anything, however.

How a magic trick is managed is as truly an explanation as anything else. You don't want to become so enamored of narrow explanations that you miss explanations in macro applications.

-- Mindy

[aleph_0]

Scientific explanation is a special kind of explanation, which does not necessarily make anything plain or so on. Scientific explanation is like giving an account, or providing some kind of understanding, even if this is a very confusing, difficult process. It is the intellectual act by which we come to know what is happening in the world.

[Vik]

"Why" the ions exert pressure is explained by diffusion, as I said. Are not the prestidigitations of a magician "physical interaction?" Effects are not explained by using jargon such as "entity-action." If window glass is broken by a baseball, you would probably insist that the glass "broke," because that fits your "entity-action" format. It doesn't add anything, however.

How a magic trick is managed is as truly an explanation as anything else. You don't want to become so enamored of narrow explanations that you miss explanations in macro applications.

-- Mindy

I'm aware of the explanation involving diffusion. I was merely illustrating that one doesn't stop at mathematical formalisms because such formalisms don't provide a *physical* explanation, which are always reducible to actions.

You explain a magic trick through a sequence of actions that accounts for the illusion.

You explain a broken window through a discussion about the nature of fracture.

I'm not saying you just stop at "Things act because of what they are".

I'm saying that you study the nature of a predicate and arrive at a physical explanation.

[Grames]

ε = <X, A, B, C, π, π_d, p> is just the septuple of these.

If you can think of a good objection and I reply to it successfully, I'll cite you.

B is undefined. Cite me