more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Some philosophers have thought that explanation is hopelessly subjective, so subjective even that it is should have no part in proper science.
Gist of Idea
Maybe explanation is so subjective that it cannot be a part of science
Source
Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.64
A Reaction
God requires no explanations, and children require many. If fundamental explanations are causal, then laying bare the causal chains is the explanation, whether you want it or not. God knows all the explanations. See Idea 6752.
Related Idea
Idea 6752 The objective component of explanations is the things that must exist for the explanation [Bird]
| 15492 | Explanations are mind-dependent, theory-laden, and interest-relative [Martin,CB] |
| 17084 | You can't decide which explanations are good if you don't attend to the interest-relative aspects [Putnam] |
| 12768 | We accept many scientific theories without endorsing them as true [Fraassen] |
| 13066 | An explanation is just descriptive information answering a particular question [Fraassen, by Salmon] |
| 17089 | Facts explain facts, but only if they are conceptualised or named appropriately [Ruben] |
| 14324 | Ontology is unrelated to explanation, which concerns modes of presentation and states of knowledge [Mumford] |
| 4404 | Maybe explanation is entirely relative to the interests and presuppositions of the questioner [Psillos] |
| 4803 | An explanation is the removal of the surprise caused by the event [Psillos] |
| 6751 | Maybe explanation is so subjective that it cannot be a part of science [Bird] |