argument vs explanation

An argument (not to be confused with the vernacular term for an acrimonious quarrel or dispute) is an assertion offered as evidence that some conclusion is true. In a cogent argument (many are not cogent), a set of premises (fact-based propositions or statements) are linked according to rules of logic in order to support a conclusion.

Arguments fail for one or more of a variety of reasons:
a) unacceptable, inaccurate, or irrelevant premises
b) faulty linkages (fallacies of logic) between premises and the conclusion(s), which fail by virtue of deviation from rules of logic
c) unsupported or irrelevant conclusions, or correct conclusions that are not logically supported by the argument presented (ignoratio elenchi)

An explanation is any statement that renders something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure, or operation, or circumstances. Explanations, for example would include an explication of the operation of the internal combustion engine, or the homicidal activities of Cho Seung-hui. An explanation is different from an argument in structure, components, and intention. While an argument can commit the fallacy of circularity, an explanation cannot.

Explanations point to links between general laws and observed effects. Ideally, explanations confer an understanding of causes, contexts, and consequences of processes, phenomena, state of affairs, objects, terminology, etc. Explanations have been variously subdivided into Deductive-Nomological, Inductive-Statistical, Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological, and Methodological.

Explanation is one of the three aims of scientific research (the others being exploration and description). Although scientific theories must logically connect empirical observation to explanation and prediction, scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws are not arguments per se. Arguments concerning values and ex-scientific metaphysics fall within the realm of philosophy. The early philosophers concerned themselves with metaphysics. However, after scientific method was applied to examination of the physical (natural) world, scientific explanations rendered much of metaphysical speculation irrelevant and superfluous – philosophers ceased to speculate about metaphysical questions for which science had provided a highly acceptable explanation and the scope of metaphysics (ontology) shrank.

external links : explanation within glossary : ignoratio elenchi : search 'lander' :

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

God of the Gaps

Argument from incredulity, God of the Gaps, subtype of argument from ignorance

The argument, "I don't believe that ..." is particularly common amongst creationists and proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory.

This is a form of argument from ignorance in which the incredulous debater refuses to believe in a particular line of evidence (denial), or an interpretation of evidence that supports an alternate conclusion to that which the debater favors. The argument from incredulity essentially takes the position that personal reluctance to believe that something is true (or false) is a good reason for unfounded insistence that it is not true (or false). The fallacy lies in the segue from opinion to attempts at justification. The fact remains that while incredulity may be justified in that disbelief may have good grounds, it also may not be justified. The problem is simply that incredulity alone is not sufficient argument for or against a fact or interpretation.

In the history of human attempts to understand their universe, supernatural explanations–Gods of the Gaps–provided a framework for explanation in the absence of scientific comprehension. Humans invented deities to fill gaps in their understanding. Modern science offers the opportunity for comprehension, but many with an emotional need to believe literally in dogma are patently not interested in attaining true understanding.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Straw Man Fallacy

Straw man

Creationists and proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory very frequently create straw man arguments, and then huff and puff and blow the straw man down. (The straw man fallacy is a form of red herring argument that involves attacking a deliberately weakened version of the opponent's actual argument.)

The frequency of this argument within creationist propaganda is a reaction to the much stronger argument presented by evidential and experimental science. Confronted with the facts of scientific knowledge, creationists and those arguing for ‘intelligent [sick] design’ typically retreat into straw man arguments, arguments from incredulity, or outright denial.

For this reason, I believe that there is often little point in explaining the facts of science to those who have a strong emotional need to believe in some form of creationism. Creationists typically know so little science that they could not assess the facts of science even if their minds were not closed to the threatening facts. Instead they repeat stale old misrepresentations of science gleaned from the numerous creationist websites that clog up the ether. The point is that any supposed scientific principle attacked by a creationist ought to be checked out before taking the red-herring-bait.

The point mutation is one target of the fallacious straw man argument – creationists argue that mutations at a single locus (position) within a chromosome could not be responsible for macroevolution. The argument is fallacious because evolutionary biologists do not claim that point mutations are responsible for all of biological evolution, whether microevolution or macroevolution, rather they have demonstrated that other sources of genetic variation are far more important. It is irrelevant to attack science through an argument that is already established within science – there simply ceases to be an argument, except one in line with the erroneous conclusions drawn by creationists.

In their fallacious straw man arguments, creationists and advocates for ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ huff and puff against a weakened version of science, and hence a weakened version of the natural world. Creationists ignore the facts in order to support their arguments against the fact of biological evolution, and no argument can be considered cogent when it deliberately, or ignorantly, misrepresents facts. The argument may have emotional appeal to those who are committed to a belief in the Special Creation of Genesis, but the argument does not achieve its ends within the realm of logic.

The Straw Man Fallacy "Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion. . . . The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent." :

Quo Vadis?
...section index...