What is an explanation really?

Question

Let's consider a hypothetical 'Church of the Moon' on a distant planet with a huge moon. The members of this church base all their beliefs about the moon and their religious practices on their holy book of the Moon.

When asked about their beliefs or about the moon itself, they only explain things in terms of what's written in their holy book. For example, if asked why the moon exists, they would say, "Because our holy book says it does." Or if they are asked why this or that happens, they reply - it happens this way and give a reference from their Moon book.

In this context, can their responses be considered 'explanations'? Would this vary depending on different philosophical or scientific perspectives?

Does an explanation need to involve demonstrating how an observation or phenomenon is a consequence of laws, principles, or more fundamental facts? Or can it be simply an account that makes something understandable or clear, in this case, by describing the narrative or beliefs from the book of the Moon?

Answer 1

At its broadest, an explanation is anything that answers a 'why' question. Explanations can be of many different types, depending on the subject matter, and explanations can be good, bad or indifferent. The most common kinds of explanations are scientific, and in the case of human behaviour, teleological.

Even within the realm of scientific explanation, there are also different kinds. "Why does water boil when heated?" is a request for an explanation of physical behaviour. "Why are whales mammals?" is a request for an explanation of the classification of living things. "Why does the Himalayan mountain range exist?" is a request for an explanation of a geological phenomenon. "Why do fools fall in love?" is a request for an explanation of human behaviour. Scientific explanations are often reductive in nature and seek to explain complex or macroscopic phenomena in terms of simpler or microscopic ones.

In the context of human behaviour, we often request teleological explanations. "Why did you do that?" is a request for a reason or an end or a motivation, not a request for how the nerves and muscles in a human body work. Even explanations of human actions can be of different kinds. For example, "Why did you spill your drink on the floor?" might be answered in several distinct ways. "I was curious to see how quickly it would evaporate." "Other people were doing so, and I decided to join in." "I was making a libation to the gods." "Someone jogged my arm." "I was drunk."

We also often ask for explanations of beliefs. "Why do you think that?" is normally a request for reasons or grounds for a belief. It is not a request for a causal explanation of a cognitive state. Also, we can ask for explanations of obligations. "Why should I do that?" is typically a request for an explanation of how an action fits into a moral framework or how it can be assimilated to an accepted moral paradigm.

Some explanations are better than others. To explain things by reference to a holy text is a poor quality explanation. It is only of value to devotees of the religion. A good scientific explanation has the same qualities as a good scientific theory, i.e. consistency, coherence, clarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, lack of adhocness, fit with empirical data, consilience, testability, high predictive value, high practical value, and maybe others. An explanation that just says, "Because God says so" is adhoc and unsatisfactory.

There are some Stanford Encyclopedia entries that cover these topics in more detail. Scientific explanation. Reasons for Action. Metaphysical explanation.

Answer 2

To explain something is to provide a causal account of it, whether in terms of efficient or final cause.

So…

Q: In this context, can the (moon people’s) responses be considered 'explanations'?

A: No - If they reference their moon god as a cause, however, then it’s an explanation.

Q: Would this vary depending on different philosophical or scientific perspectives?

A: No

Q: Does an explanation need to involve demonstrating how an observation or phenomenon is a consequence of laws, principles, or more fundamental facts?

A: No - Here is an illustration. Q: “Why did you go Grandma’s house? What is the explanation?” A: “I went there because she made cookies and I wanted to eat them. The idea of me eating the cookies is the cause that led to all the behaviors that led up to my arriving at Grandma’s house”. (Final cause) All of this is in Kant, incidentally.

Q: Or can it be simply an account that makes something understandable or clear, in this case, by describing the narrative or beliefs from the book of the Moon?

A: No

Such is my position.