An explanation’s value might be dependent on what I had for dinner last night as well. And the alignment of the stars. I’m asking what an explanation is.
I’m trying to work with you here, James. In the midst of all that masculine/feminine stuff, which frankly did nothing for me, I detected a short term versus long term dichotomy. This does have something to do with what an explanation is, I think. If an explanation offers intellectual satisfaction, then there is some “objective” aspect to explanations, as explanations that only work in the short term aren’t very satisfactory.
At the root of my various questions is a central nagging question regarding whether explanations correspond to truths, or whether they are a means by which people navigate social situations, through overcoming differences. And are these two ways of looking at explanations at odds with each other, or are do they lead to the same place, i.e. truth and homogeneity? Is diversity of opinion a function of lack of knowledge of truth? If not, are there no truths?
Again, that merely depends on who you are. What I was pointing out was the difference, not of short versus long necessarily, but rather of shallow versus deep, immediate gratification versus foundation establishment. And of course, happens to follow “liberal vs conservative” to a large degree, but not entirely.
Explanations are about the foundational relationship of components in a paradigm, the under-standing upon which facts are foreseen.
Both, depending on how people are attempting to handle their environment. Today, in the West, truth has no respect. The idea is to keep people at odds, thus they cannot all agree on any truth. Truth must be abandoned and outlawed. That leaves explanations as merely tools for creating like mindedness within smaller groups, perhaps none of which have any compliance to truth or reality.
Certainly. One is of Truth. The other is of Perception that is intentionally distracted from Truth.
It is a function of politics and the insanity of Man.
Explanations are tools to be used to contrive and manage. They are only relevant to truth for the relatively few who love truth so severely that they refuse any inconsistencies to enter their own conceptual model of reality - their “Truth” model. These tend to be the logic oriented because logic is entirely about consistency.
There can be many models of Truth. Often an explanation is merely attempting to display the efficacy of one model over another. More often explanations are the result of the confusion of varied models not being kept distinct in a conversation.
This is the internet after all – yea could be worse!
Well besides the primer on sexual differentiation and evolutionary biology – which is plausible to some extent. Are you still basically saying that different explanations are required by different people in different contexts which sounds suspiciously like stuff said above.
But does that get us anywhere new?
The idea that there might be a difference, in general, between men and women as to what counts as an explanation is certainly interesting.
However going back to the pond (for a paddle!) would the difference in view point between the “average” man and woman looking for some feature of it being explained not be much less then that between some one wanting to know if its safe to swim in it and a hydrologist looking for actual equations or figures on current flows?
In one sense these two both want the same thing – descriptions of current – but in very different senses or depths of information and for different reasons.
Another good question – I’d be strongly inclined the second choice – for example a request for information by your new neighbour is more important not for the fact eg “the location of the library” but as the beginning of your relationship.
Possibly there are questions of “truth” if you are a scientist or an old school analytical/empiricist philosopher – but for everyone else in ordinary contexts
– I think demands for explanation are often just how you feel your way about socially…
I think there’s a fear of the notion of some one truth that all inquiries converge on. I think that fear is well grounded in history (Nazis, Christians, Stalinists, Fundamentalists of various hues) On the other hand I don’t see a recourse to relativism as a solution. So there’s a tough question to be answered right there – some form of social perspectivism maybe some relative relativism – but they don’t sound great even to me!
Context is of course relevant, but wasn’t exactly my point. I was referring to the priorities of the inquirer being immediate or surface concerns versus deeper analytical foundation concerns. Those are stereo-typical feminine and masculine respectively.
Masculine and feminine mind do not necessarily relate to man and woman, but yes, the distinction between safe in regards to immediately acceptable and safe in regards to analytically understood typifies the issue.
Biblically it is the issue of leavened or unleavened bread.
that depends on how well they function with regard to the purposes of those seeking the explanation
can you elaborate on what you mean here? if one’s purpose is to navigate social situations and overcome differences, then they can certainly be a means to that end - but that wouldn’t make them any less true
sometimes, sometimes not - it depends on how effective the explanations are, i think
not at all - it’s through diversity of opinion that we experiment with various potential truths - opinions evolve to suit one’s purposes - like truth itself - diverse opinions allow the evolution of thought about what’s true
Who are these people? And what right have they to define anything? What’s wrong with the explanation given in “Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy” (SIC) that the number 42 explains all there is to know about human reality?
certainly the particular types of explanations we seek do reveal quite a bit about ourselves - but they have to do more than that, they also have to apply in a meaningful way to the matter for which one seeks explanation, and work in accordance with our rules and purposes, all of which limit what explanations we have to pick and choose from - so i think it’s more a question of which explanations we prefer than it is a case of them amounting to whatever we want them to be.
UPF,
The application of preference begs knowledge of the conditions that prompt one to prefer, as you well noted. The problem of universals is that they seem to be at odds with personal preferences. By universals, I’m talking about paradigmatic “certainties” as they are proposed and exploited by science, religion and philosophy.
I guess what I’m saying is even if your purpose is to discover truths, and not to overcome differences, the truth of the matter might be that all that has occurred is the overcoming of differences, and not the discovery of truths.
That last bit is very interesting to me. But I have a further question about it - the way you state it, diversity of opinion might simply be part of some Hegelian dialectic. Given these diverse opinions, I can imagine some future synthesis, where truth and homogeneity reign. On the other hand, perhaps the truth of the matter is that no such singular truth can be stated, in which case all “truths” are simply narrative - in other words, all truths are context-dependent.
“Coleridge explains metaphysics to the nation.
I wish he would explain his explanation.”-- George Gordon, Lord Byron
Beyond the dictionary definition of what an explanation is lie considerations of who is doing the explaining and why. These considerations can help us distinguish explanations based on how one feels, thinks or believes from explanations based on uncritical acceptance of opinions expressed by persons seen as unimpeachable authorities.
During high school, college and, perhaps grad school, students are required to read “authoritative” texts that explain subject matters to them. Only the most precocious students or rare, creative teachers dare question textual explanations. For orientation into subject matter authoritative texts provide students with foundations, models and justifications of time-honored explanatory models. Yet, inventors and other creative persons eventually shed the swaddling clothes of rote learning and are sometimes able to contribute to, or even radically change, the paradigms of explanation they fisrt learned.
The student who, upon hearing that oxygen is a gas, asks what a gas is, may not be just another smart-ass. And not many teachers would offer that student an impromtu description of classes, constiuents, relationships, values, or even an explanation of how all of these explanatory references carry historical social and cultural markings.
My guess is that few students nowadays read Darwin. There is easy internet access to a synopsis of Darwin’s work and to about any comment made about this since it was published. With the internet one gets instant access to predigested explanations of almost anything. So, even with such explanations at our fingertips, I would ask if it is not too old-fashioned to ask who does the defining and why.
While challenging authority is the mark of independent thought, the explanations of authority are usually grounded in later observation and experience. Darwin is accepted because his explanations “fit” better than others. Freud remains in controversy because many of his explanations don’t match up with experience and observation.
Beyond that, the evolution of new thought and new discoveries often challenge old explanations. Sooooo, the acceptance of authority is dependent on the circumstances of the current time frame and the particular color of glasses one views any authoritive explanation. Do we rely on authority too much? Yup. We are a lazy bunch…
it neednt be specifically Hegelian, but yes, i think it’s part of a dialectical process
well all truths are narrative, i will agree to that much - context dependent to some extent, but also useful in the abstract, as rules, like 1+1 = 2 - an indisputable truth but not always a correct description of the way events occur - go figure. i don’t think truth and homogeneity will ever reign - they’re rarely foremost among our priorites
in any case, truth is not just something out there that we discover, it’s something we help create and determine - our truths fit our needs and if they don’t or they cease to, we can always create alternate (new) ones - the narrative is always maleable - except at those points in the narrative where we’ve defined the maleability out of existence, like we’ve done with math, where everything is true by definition - definitions WE wrote.
what is called true is driven by human inquiry, which is driven by human needs and desires and tastes all the way down the line - all truths are human truths, or at best, animal truths - narrative in any case, there is no truth without consciousness - the statement 1+1=2 is just so much human gibberish when taken in the context of the broader universe.
Tent,
So how do we escape relativism and perspectivism? Kuhn seems to think these are not necessarily problematic in scientific explanations, just in philosophical explanations. BTW, I am not opposed to authoritarian explanations. I see them as stepping stones.