Nature of Scientific Explanation
It is the job of science to explain
things but how exactly does that explanation work / what kind of explanation
does science actually offer to us. To begin answering this question we need to
first become aware that there are many kinds of explanation; they are the
answers to many kinds of question. Some examples follow below:
What is photosynthesis? What is an ombudsman? What is
heuristics? Here the explanation would be a definition of these terms.
What does this fire insurance policy mean? Can you explain Finnegans Wake? Here the explanation would be a paraphrase
of these documents, which would restate the sense in simpler or more familiar
Will you explain chess to me? The explanation here would be
to state the rules of the game.
Why is there no greatest prime number? Why is the sum of the
interior angles of a Euclidean triangle 1800? Here the explanation would be the
analysis of what is logically entailed by certain postulates of logic and
How do you fly a kite? How do you ski? The explanation here
would be a practical demonstration of a skill or a technique; it might not
Why did Brutus stab Caesar? This explanation would provide
Brutus’ reasons, motives, and beliefs.
Why are snow and milk alike? The explanation here would
require reference to the metaphysical universal “whiteness” in which both
Thus, there are various ways in
which an explanation may be given. One of my favorites appears in a story by
Ring Lardner: “‘Why are we going in there again,
daddy?’ ‘Shut up,’ his father explained.” All of these explanations work by
releasing the tension that provoked the question. It evokes the “aha!”
response: oh, so Brutus thought Caesar wanted to be emperor! so
the Trojan horse was full of soldiers! so Miss Prism
was the nurse! so there was sabotage on the plane! If
the puzzlement is not in fact eliminated, the explanation is not accepted.
Byron wrote, of Coleridge’s ‘Explaining Metaphysics to the Nation’ “I wish he
would explain his explanation.”
So how does explanation work in
Science? Ideally Science explains a fact by embedding it within a general law
from which, along with the particular conditions involved, the fact to be
explained may be logically deduced. Thus:
In each case, the particular fact is
explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law. The
scientist explains what happens by devising concepts (e.g., temperature,
oxidation, and gravitation) to describe particular experiences, and by
supplying a framework of covering laws from which, in conjunction with the
specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we
want to have explained.
In some cases Science also explains
something new by reducing it to something simpler that we already understand.
This is called reductionism and science abounds with good examples of how
reductionism helps us explain something: when sound was reduced to a wave in
the air, all that was previously known about water waves could be applied to
sound waves; lightning has been reduced to electricity; heat to molecular
motion; magnetism to molecular alignment … etc.
The term reductionism is
occasionally attacked by some as a bad thing and this is often when scientists
try to explain something human, beautiful or special in terms of something
simple, biological and ugly – for example that your mind is really just a
product of your brain. However, it is important to bear in mind that when you
reduce one thing to another you only make a conceptual link between the two
things to help you understand the second by using ideas that you already have
about the first. Thus, saying that the mind is a product of brain activity is
meant to help us understand what the mind is using what we already understand
about the physiology of the brain it is not meant to ‘get rid’ of the mind.
Heat is as real and as hot as it ever was, even though it is really only an aspect of molecular
motion and in the same way the mind is as real as ever, even though it is
really only an aspect of brain activity.
Science is also said sometimes to
have explained something when it can be used to predict the behaviour of that
thing. For example we have explained why dropped rocks fall because the theory
of Gravity allows us to predict that rocks will fall when dropped on the Earth,
but they won’t in space, but that they will again on the Moon.
So it seems that there are at least
three different ways in which science can be said to explain something,
although the first is by far the commonest. While we are on the subject,
however, it will be useful to consider some common misconceptions about
It is sometimes said that science describes, rather than
explains. This point is usually raised by those who would prefer to explain
that Bert caught malaria because he deceived his wife, or that the pond froze
so that the children could skate. On November 1, 1755, an earthquake in
It is sometimes said that science explains the strange by
the familiar; but typically the reverse is the case. Such familiar phenomena as
rust, sunrise, tides, illness, family resemblance, and so on, are explained by
such unfamiliar concepts as oxidation, gravitational attraction, invisible
germs, and genes.
Scientific explanation is not the same as “understanding” in
the sense in which it is said, for example, that D. H. Lawrence understood
women, or that T. E. Lawrence understood the Arab mentality, or that an
experienced nurse understands children. Such understanding is more like
knowledge by acquaintance or like knowing how than like science.
A scientific explanation need not be a causal law. It may be
a law of simultaneous existence rather than of succession. Boyle’s Law, for
example, associates the pressure of a gas with its volume, but pressure and volume
are not cause and effect.
Adapted from Reuben Abel’s ‘Man is the Measure’ (Chapter 10)