Difference between revisions of "Explanation in science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(adding sentence from Skell)
m (top: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://books.google.com → https://books.google.com (2))
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Explanation in [[science]]''' is a description of the unknown in terms of the [[knowledge|known]].<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=128|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=}}</ref> When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Philip Skell |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin?|publisher=The Scientist|date=August 29, 2005 |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/|accessdate=June 13, 2013}}</ref>
+
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
 +
! style="font-size:120%; background:green; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Causal explanations
 +
|-
 +
| style="padding:15px;" |«''Facts are reliable, but readers of facts will inevitably and legitimately differ about causal explanations.''» 
 +
<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Henry Power<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=62–3 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC |quote=}}</ref>  </div>
 +
|}
 +
'''Explanation in [[science]]''' is a description of the unknown in terms of the [[knowledge|known]].<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=128|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=}}</ref> When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Philip Skell |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin?|publisher=The Scientist|date=August 29, 2005 |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/|accessdate=June 13, 2013}}</ref> Explanation in science, and anywhere else, if it is to avoid an [[infinite regress]], always lead to certain things that are regarded as [[First cause|ultimate]].<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
 +
|author=John C. Lennox
 +
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
 +
|publisher=Lion Hudson
 +
|location=Oxford, England
 +
|year=2009
 +
|pages=186
 +
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jaV4gLt24HYC
 +
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
 +
|quote=}}</ref> Claude Perrrault remarked that the main aim of science was to explain effects as best one could. However, as there may possibly be different causes capable of producing the same effect, it is hard to achieve agreed-upon explanation even for a single [[phenomenon]]. The French expression ''"le moins mal qu'il est possible"''{{#tag:ref|ca. The least wrong is what is possible.|group=note}}  conveying this pessimism occurs already in Claude's Perrault's 1680 ''Essais de physique''.<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>
 +
 
 +
== Notes ==
 +
<references group=note/>
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
{{Reflist}}
 
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
+
 
 +
== See also ==
 +
*[[Fog displacement]]
 +
*[[Scientific method]]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Philosophy of Science]]
 
[[Category:Methodology of Science]]
 
[[Category:Methodology of Science]]

Latest revision as of 15:56, September 26, 2018

Causal explanations
«Facts are reliable, but readers of facts will inevitably and legitimately differ about causal explanations.»
— Henry Power[1]

Explanation in science is a description of the unknown in terms of the known.[2] When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.[3] Explanation in science, and anywhere else, if it is to avoid an infinite regress, always lead to certain things that are regarded as ultimate.[4] Claude Perrrault remarked that the main aim of science was to explain effects as best one could. However, as there may possibly be different causes capable of producing the same effect, it is hard to achieve agreed-upon explanation even for a single phenomenon. The French expression "le moins mal qu'il est possible"[note 1] conveying this pessimism occurs already in Claude's Perrault's 1680 Essais de physique.[1]

Notes

  1. ca. The least wrong is what is possible.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Rhoda Rappaport (1997). When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750. Cornell University Press, 62–3. ISBN 978-0801-433863. 
  2. Alex Williams, John Hartnett (2005). Dismantling the Big Bang. Green Forest, AR, USA: Master Books, 346. ISBN 978-0-89051-437-5. 
  3. Philip Skell (August 29, 2005). Why Do We Invoke Darwin?. The Scientist. Retrieved on June 13, 2013.
  4. John C. Lennox (2009). God's undertaker. Has science buried God?. Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, 186. ISBN 978-0-7459-5371-7. 

See also