Explanation

One explanation is a communicative act that determines or explains a fact, situation or an intention. A scientific explanation is in the philosophy of science, the most important form of Begründens, namely the logical derivation of a statement of fact from a scientific law as well as the assumed as a given situation conditions under which acts selbiges law.

The Declaration as a communicative act

The term has two different meanings here: In the first case the "Declaration " means the description of a phenomenon or the explanation of facts. In the second case the "Declaration " naming the causes of a phenomenon (ie the naming of causal relationships ) means.

Opposite statement, assertion and evidence is not clearly demarcate the term explanation:

• The term statement sets up the perspective on the content, the semantic content of each record.
• The term assertion takes more the speaker in the look that has an interest to make a specific statement - you can talk about about by a deliberate, hasty, justified, misleading or hypothetical assertion. With assertions, the question arises which value the speaker wants to have attached to them as allegedly true statements.
• Evidence should be as short as possible, precise and compelling - it is quite possible that the compelling evidence here a detailed explanation needed to be understood.

The term explanation, however, directs our attention to the addressee, ie to the person to be explaining something.

One explanation " convinced " she "lights on", it can also turn out " not satisfactory " or "disappointing". The addressee may provide an explanation as an excuse conduct that he felt was hurtful, "anticipates", or come to the conclusion that he will " not accept " with her, is hoping for a sincere, honest explanation. One speaks of a " child-friendly explanation," if one aligns the Declaration on the ability to understand a child. It is a phenomenon of a " natural explanation " if you stay in the district scientifically detectable operations. One can, which characterizes the orientation of the word to the addressee, speak of a " sensitive Declaration" - but not of an " empathetic assertion ," or a " sensitive evidence". The definition of the word is difficult because of the satisfaction of the addressee is the definition of deprivation factor in the game.

It declared itself to the 18th century as a fire burning phlogiston, a substance that should be present in combustible matter and would be consumed in the fire. Our present declaration goes against it from a reaction with and present in the atmosphere of oxygen.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman presented a statement of the Foreign Ministry, after which we should have known nothing of the events in question - the declaration was rejected by the opposition as unsatisfactory.

Scientific Explanation

In his Logic of Scientific Discovery (. III. chapter, paragraph 12) defines Karl Popper " a process causally explained " as: "Derive a sentence claiming it deductively from laws and boundary conditions ". The corresponding " deductive- nomological " or " hypothetical- deductive " model of explanation has been worked extensively by Carl Gustav Hempel and Paul Oppenheim.

The Hempel - Oppenheim model ( HO model, deductive- nomological model also, DN ) model of scientific explanation has not yet been replaced, despite numerous criticisms by another and is still used for orientation.

At the center of a scientific explanation, therefore, are laws or law-like statements. According to the HO model two classes must be used by empirically looking statements for an explanation. These are firstly, the boundary conditions ( also called antecedent conditions ), which are given before or simultaneously with the phenomenon to be explained, and law-like hypotheses. Both statements classes together are called the explanans ( the explanatory ). A scientific explanation is then composed of the logical derivation of the phenomenon descriptive statement of fact ( = explanandum, the thing to be explained ) from the explanans. It is important here to note that the Gesetzesausagen not have to describe necessary deterministic laws, but may also include statistical laws. Depending on the declarations are called deductive- nomological or statistical- inductive.

Found declarations which correspond to the HO model can always be used, in principle, on forecasts of future events. We therefore speak in this sense of the equivalence of the logical structure of statements according to the HO model and scientific predictions. However, one can go for forecasting purposes by empirical generalizations or correlations without having to has precise knowledge of the real causal legal contexts.

Jon Elster criticizes the HO model, because it is between causal statements and mere correlations do not allow to distinguish and make no statements about whether other causal relationships under consideration affect or hinder the act does. He prefers to choose, following Paul Veyne right to shift the emphasis more on finding out and ever better understanding of causal mechanisms rather than as to the improvement of theories.

Causal explanation

The causal explanation is still regarded as the scientific mode of explanation per se. It is important to emphasize that after the term " causal" refers only to a logical deduction, on the logical derivation of the descriptive to the explanatory process set out laws and initial conditions. The causal explanation thus corresponds directly to the HO model.

Because of the importance of causal explanation and the HO model, the question of traceability others discussed in the philosophy of science explanations for the HO model. This is particularly the question of taking the importance hypothetical laws in other modes of explanation of interest.

Disposition Elle Statement

From a dispositional or dispositional explanation is when the behavior of an object is explained with the aid of a disposition, which is attributed to this object. While general laws found in the use of causal explanation, in containing no individual object, law-like statements are used, in which a particular individual object is mentioned in the dispositional explanation. The dispositional statement also plays an important role in the explanation of human action, if this is to be explained, for example, by the character of that person.

Genetic explanation

From a genetic explanation is when the statement of a fact consists of several stages which can be summarized to a statement chain whose end link is the fact to be explained. Example of a ( causal ) genetic explanation is an n-stage explanation chain in which the n-th stage antecedent to the explanandum of (n-1 ) th stage is identical ( each step here corresponds to the HO model ). In general, the structure of genetic explanations, however, is more complicated because usually contains the antecedent of later stages of life in the explanandum of the preceding stage, additional antecedent conditions. The genetic explanation can be divided into historical- genetic and systematic genetic explanations, the causal- genetic is a special case of the latter.

Intentional explanation

After the hermeneutics view comes in the sciences, which attempt to explain human behavior (such as sociology, history), a fundamentally different mode of explanation into consideration as in the natural sciences. This view is justified by the fact that you have it here to do with singular unrepeatable events, therefore, unlike the natural sciences, where the " General " should be explained. It should also be in these areas rather than a statement of causal laws also make a statement with motives, intentions, goals, wool, etc. is possible that having a teleological character.

This view is strongly criticized and rejected, especially from the ranks of Analytic Philosophy. It is argued here that singular non-repeatable events are considered and explained in the natural sciences, such as certain unique events within our solar system. Conversely, explanations in the human sciences have always been a common component, since no individual single event can be described completely real, and thus a logical distinction between the modes of explanation in the two fields of science on this basis was impossible. Also a statement of motives, intentions, etc., according to this critique, at best, a " foolproof way " teleological, which is compatible with a causal explanation of motifs. The motive was before goal achievement in a person's present, and determine causal inter alia, the action of the person, the event of goal achievement, not an action may be determined by a date in the future target achievement event in itself, as is the " mystical" teleology correspond. The fact that often no laws are used in explanations in the human sciences, is a mistake that derives from the fact that these are often not explicitly mentioned, but are implicitly assumed.

The special status of the human sciences is also justified by the argument that in this area a special method would be available: the method of understanding. This is based on the assumption that the mental processes in other persons are sufficiently similar to its own. In contrast to the natural sciences, where the events are only "outside" accessible might pull in the human sciences through the inner access to their own soul-world analogy is therefore that provide explanatory motives to actions of other people. This view was represented by a number of important personalities such as Max Weber. Is criticized here is that even in persons who live in the same cultural and social environment, often undermined in everyday life errors in the assessment of motives. Therefore, this method is at best a heuristic method for finding hypotheses whose accuracy is thus by no means proved, so that this method does not provide an explanation for an argumentative situation. One of such derived hypothesis must be checked as in the natural sciences by empirical data.

In addition to these arguments, there are also advances. Georg Henrik von Wright has a formal präzisiertes intentionalistisches declaration scheme ( IE) developed, which is a modification of the practical syllogism, in which he sees a counter-model to causal HO model in the field of human sciences. Although it has been shown by Tuomelas that this IE scheme only leads to an argumentative statement if under the assumptions, the empirical law of a certain kind ( Ducasse - set) is received, so it is subsumed under the causal HO model. However, G. H. can be interpreted by Wright's scheme as nichtargumentative Policy. This means that you can expand the term " statement " in such a way that in addition to explanatory arguments in the form of a logical derivation of the descriptive event from the premises also allows intentionalistic depth analyzes. This question about about the motive of the people involved, but have not aim to derive the results from the action event logical. Example would be in the history sciences and then to explain the same event in parallel in two ways; after the causal HO model and after the intentionalist explanation pattern.

Deviations from the ideal model

The scientific explanation is an ideal model that can not be achieved in practice. So would have approximately the total explanation of a physical phenomenon, that is a statement that leaves nothing unexplained and inexplicable phenomenon explained in detail, actually the entire state of the universe at any given time as a boundary condition to be known ( and be self- declared ) which is impossible. The attenuated form of the completed declaration that satisfies only the first condition, that nothing remains unexplained, is not possible. Some antecedent conditions must always remain unexplained; a demand for explanation of all the antecedent conditions results in an infinite regress.

In practice, it is therefore only incomplete declarations, which does not mean that their assumption would not be justified. Incomplete returns may be well verified by experience data and in this way a good confirmation learn. In imperfect explanation more types can be distinguished. There is the inaccurate statements when the terms used in a statement are vague or ambiguous. From a rudimentary explanation is when the antecedent conditions are only incompletely understood and the necessary laws are not explicitly mentioned, but are implicitly assumed. For a partial explanation, the explanans is not sufficient to explain the explanandum in all its aspects. In a statement sketch the explanans is only a vague outline and more or less vague clues as to how the plan could be completed to a statement exists.

From a pseudo - statement is used when the linguistic form a scientific explanation only pretending, but fundamental faults in the logic of explanation, such as the use of a concealed tautology, logical circle or a theoretical construct not measured independently of the explanandum will.

Analogy models

Analogy models are a highly attenuated variant of the modern today as untenable respected but formerly often held view that a scientific explanation can be given solely by reduction to known and familiar and analogies. This outdated view is today one hand, because of their subjectivity ( what is " familiar ", differs from individual to individual ) no longer represented, on the other hand, it is the self-understanding of today's science, just find the seemingly known and familiar question. The modern version does not provide a separate statement. The problem here is that the assumed model in analogy isomorphism between two different areas can only be actually accepted if the laws of both areas are known; So in retrospect. Are these laws but known, can also be given a causal explanation according to the HO model, and it no longer needs the analogy model.