Science

Is explanation factive? On the one hand it seems very explanatory to be told that the Butler did it in the kitchen with the axe, because the Butler always seemed a nasty character and harboured a grudge against the victim, even if the Butler is innocent. But on the other hand it would seem false to say that the murder had been explained in such an instance. Thanks.

Comments

Sometimes, when we say things like "Jones died because the butler killed him with an ax", what we have said is false if the butler did not in fact kill Jones. After all, Jones' history of smoking cigarettes cannot have caused Jones to develop lung cancer if Jones did not have a history of smoking cigarettes. (By the same token, Jones' history of smoking cigarettes cannot ahve caused Jones to develop lung cancer if Jones did not, in fact, develop lung cancer!) Notice that I have cunningly shifted from explanation to causation. Clearly, for event C to cause event E, both C and E must have happened.

On the other hand, there are times when we say that a scientific theory explains some fact even when that theory is false. For instance, if we are deliberating among several rival, mutually incompatible theories, we might say something like "Theory A explains fact E but doesn't explain fact F, whereas theory B explains both E and F, so (all other things being equal) theory B is more plausible than theory A." In that remark, we allowed a false theory to do some explanatiory work.

Of course, we might want to reinterpret that remark as follows: "If theory A is true, then it explains E but not F, whereas if theory B is true, then it explains both E and F..."

On the other hand, we do sometimes regard a theory as explaining some fact even when that theory is false -- as long as the theory is a good enough model for facts of that kind. For instance, a theory with idealizations (ideal gases, frictionless planes, perfectly smooth surfaces...) may explain some phenomenon even if the theory is, strictly speaking, false. It seems that an explanatory model does not need to be true. But then what must it be?

Read another response by Marc Lange

Read another response about Science