some ideas on "What is an explanation?"
Jul. 26th, 2005 06:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslExplanation is about answering questions of the form "why is B the case?".
I can see 4 different notions:
retrodiction: (i.e. inverse prediction)
if A predicts B, and B happens, then knowledge of A explains it.
Problem: although a barometer may predict rain the next day, knowledge that the barometer was predicting rain does not explain the rain (on some definitions/accounts of explanation). This notion is probabilistic but not temporal.
causal explanation (stricter than retrodiction): if A is known to cause B, after B happens, finding out that A is the case will answer "Why is B the case?". I think this is pretty uncontroversial. (although one should never say this to philosophers: I can already imagine you guys giving me a classical scenario). This notion is temporal and probabilistic.
derivation:
If B can be derived logico-mathematically from A, then finding out that A may answer the question "Why is B the case?". This notion is neither temporal nor probabilistic.
analogy:
Finding out that there exists an A analogous to B might satisfy your curiosity about "Why is B the case?".
If we only had this notion, we could never explain the explainer because of infinite regress. (Never mind that we always have to have some axioms that we take for granted). It seems to suggest coherence networks instead of deductive ones where there's a top and a bottom. This notion is probabilistic but not temporal.
I can see 4 different notions:
retrodiction: (i.e. inverse prediction)
if A predicts B, and B happens, then knowledge of A explains it.
Problem: although a barometer may predict rain the next day, knowledge that the barometer was predicting rain does not explain the rain (on some definitions/accounts of explanation). This notion is probabilistic but not temporal.
causal explanation (stricter than retrodiction): if A is known to cause B, after B happens, finding out that A is the case will answer "Why is B the case?". I think this is pretty uncontroversial. (although one should never say this to philosophers: I can already imagine you guys giving me a classical scenario). This notion is temporal and probabilistic.
derivation:
If B can be derived logico-mathematically from A, then finding out that A may answer the question "Why is B the case?". This notion is neither temporal nor probabilistic.
analogy:
Finding out that there exists an A analogous to B might satisfy your curiosity about "Why is B the case?".
If we only had this notion, we could never explain the explainer because of infinite regress. (Never mind that we always have to have some axioms that we take for granted). It seems to suggest coherence networks instead of deductive ones where there's a top and a bottom. This notion is probabilistic but not temporal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:04 pm (UTC)1) use the LJ-CUT tag
2) combine your posts into one post
Thanks in advance!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:10 pm (UTC)Do you mean here? What's your criterion generally?
2) combine your posts into one post
if you mean these last two, then I don't think they belong together.
I want to start tagging all my posts, so my readers can filter out the stuff they don't want to see (does LJ make this easy?). I thought you'd be interested in philosophy, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:26 pm (UTC)2) in general, you seem to post in spurts. No posts for a week, then four in a row. When you post four times within minutes, it throws off my friends view. If it's just two posts, it's not a big deal - but when it's three or more, it's distracting.
I'm not much of an LJ master. I'd love to customize it on my own. But I'm kind of a tard on some of these things, so I rely on my friends to make it easier for me :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:28 pm (UTC)At any other stage in my life, yes. But see my post of a few days ago about having brain-fry due to child rearing, and you'll see why I just skip past anything having to do with purely academic philosophy.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:31 pm (UTC)I'll keep your request in mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 05:51 pm (UTC)Hume would have disagreed with much of what you wrote about prediction and causality. He had some pretty cogent arguments, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-26 06:16 pm (UTC)That's all I can ask :-)