on Explanation

[Vik]

What is an explanation--in general? Not merely a scientific one. Any of them.

Here is one attempt:

An explanation is a logical arrangement of propositions used to deduce a set of facts concerning an effect.

(A full treatment of propositions is needed, but that is outside the scope of this thread, namely describing explanation)

What is an effect?

It's the action, event, phenomenon, etc. associated with a set of entities operating under certain conditions in accordance with their respective identities.

So explanation involves showing how a physical interaction, under a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, produces an effect.

Why do we try to deduce facts?

So we can succeed at achieving some purpose. Our success depends on a *correct* explanation.

A correct explanation shows how an effect necessarily follows from the constitutive properties of the entities involved.

[SapereAude]

What is an explanation--in general? Not merely a scientific one. Any of them.

Here is one attempt:

An explanation is a logical arrangement of propositions used to deduce a set of facts concerning an effect.

(A full treatment of propositions is needed, but that is outside the scope of this thread, namely describing explanation)

What is an effect?

It's the action, event, phenomenon, etc. associated with a set of entities operating under certain conditions in accordance with their respective identities.

So explanation involves showing how a physical interaction, under a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, produces an effect.

Why do we try to deduce facts?

So we can succeed at achieving some purpose. Our success depends on a *correct* explanation.

A correct explanation shows how an effect necessarily follows from the constitutive properties of the entities involved.

Is there a reason you are assuming that the logic being used is deductive & non inductive reasoning?

[DavidOdden]

An explanation is a logical arrangement of propositions used to deduce a set of facts concerning an effect.

Yes, I think that is correct, though I would say "from which.... can be deduced", because that avoids the (incorrect) implication of "used to deduce". That is not why we have explanations. They are used to predict other instances, and amount to systematizing the measurements omitted.

[DavidOdden]

Is there a reason you are assuming that the logic being used is deductive & non inductive reasoning?

He's addressing a later stage in gaining knowledge. The logical foundation, i.e. the explanation, is arrived at inductively. What you get, then, is a set of validated propositions, and then you can reverse the process and deductively grasp the concrete existents that the inductively-established principles refer to.

[Vik]

Yes, I think that is correct, though I would say "from which.... can be deduced", because that avoids the (incorrect) implication of "used to deduce". That is not why we have explanations. They are used to predict other instances, and amount to systematizing the measurements omitted.

Three aspects need to be differentiated:

An explanatory law is the product of a process of generalization. Its open-ended character anticipates certain kinds of events yet to be observed.

Explanatory laws can be used as source material for providing particular explanations of particular effects.

An explanatory theory is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for an open-ended set of phenomena. A theory predicts phenomena yet to be observed as well as explains familiar phenomena.. It has wider generality than explanatory laws or particular explanations about particular effects. A theory explains certain descriptive generalizations as well as specific observations.