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...

Scientia

The term science derives from the Latin word for knowledge – scientia. Although laymen tend to confuse science with the areas investigated by scientific method, science strictly refers to a systematic method of attaining knowledge about the physical world.

Scientific 'knowledge' inheres both observed, empirical data and the best possible explanation regarding the mechanisms by which the observed phenomena came about and the prediction, where appropriate, of any future manifestations that can reasonably be expected. Scientific method is most appropriately applied to natural, physical phenomena, and methodology defines the subject areas appropriate to investigation.

Historically, early Western scientists believed that their empirical observations were a cataloguing of God's works. However, science ultimately became religion-neutral. As understanding of the operations of the physical world increased, it became obvious that there is no logical necessity to invoke miraculous explanations for natural phenomena. Much to the chagrin and denial of creationists, God has been squeezed out of the shrinking gaps in scientific knowledge. As a result, scientists, those with higher education, and those with higher IQ are more likely than the general population to accept the fact of biological evolution, and to be agnostic or atheist.

ɷ Behe Retreats
ɷ Complexity Reductio
ɷ God of the Gaps
ɷ Irreducible Illogic
ɷ Through the Microscope Brightly
ɷ We, the Products of Blind Evolution

ɷ biological evolution
ɷ inductive vs deductive
ɷ science

Ex Ducare

In a scene in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", Edinburgh schoolmarm Jean Brodie is under attack from headmistress Miss MacKay.

The dialogue runs something like this:
Jean Brodie: "Education is from the Latin, ex and ducare, meaning leading out."
Miss MacKay: "I wish there were a little more putting in!"

(Maggie Smith won a well-deserved Oscar for her role in this Jay Presson Allen adaptation of the multi-layered play based on Muriel Spark's novel.)

The key point of the book/play/movie is encapsulated when Miss Brodie says, "Give me a girl at an impressionable age and she is mine for life."

Proponents of religion recognize this credulity and malleability of children when they campaign to insert religious teachings into the classroom or create dinosaur lie-oramas.

Modern education is, of course, probably more about putting in than leading out, yet both seem important at the university level. Critical thinking skills certainly seem particularly vital in an electronic age of unedited-crap-bombardment.

Although the US boasts some of the highest ranked universities in the world when comparisons are based on quality of research output, American 15-year olds rank dismally low in math (25th-28th), reading (12th-23rd), and science (20th-27th). The low rankings were reported for a 2003 comparison of more than 250,000 15-year old students from 41 countries. Why the discrepancy?

I have not found a posted explanation, but the answer probably lies in the mega-buck funding of America's top research universities. Take a look at the research scientists, post-graduate fellows, and graduate students of the top science research labs and you will quickly notice that the labs are heavily weighted with foreign-trained scientists. The US is draining brains from other nations because it has the funds to attract top scientists. This does not necessarily mean, though, that the quality of American university graduates stacks as high as the standards of research publications would suggest.

Another quality comparison can be performed by examining science course materials on university websites (.edu). The better American universities do provide high quality material, but many lecture notes from lesser colleges indicate that the courses for which they are posted are low in quality and informational content. By comparison, British (.ac.uk) websites suggest much more demanding undergraduate courses.

No wonder the usual inverse relationship between science education and religiosity fails in the US. It appears that many American universities provide a less than rigorous basic education in the natural sciences. Couple inadequate educational standards with the vehement creationism and anti-science machinations of religious fundamentalists and it is little wonder that the US has not progressed far since the ludicrous Scopes "monkey trial".

ɷ Inverse Correlations

Quo Vadis?
...section index...