Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T05:17:19.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Science and the Explanation of Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Helen Wodehouse
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge.

Extract

Describing and explaining; tracing the outlines and smoothing out the folds; making clear and making plain; in either case hoping that our hearer may be able to say, “Yes, I see it better now.” Is there really a fundamental difference between these two? Common parlance uses both words for the same kind of process. We may be asked either to “explain” or to “describe” the working of a machine, answering the English boy's question “Why does it do this?” or the Scotch “What's the go of it?” To account for a sum of money is to explain its absence by describing its expenditure. We say, “Why is that man offended?” or, equally, “What's the matter?” and a brief description of the man's character and history, showing on what structure a casual remark has impinged, may lead us to say, “That explains it.” Even where purpose enters we may vary the words we use. “Why on earth did you do that?” “What was your idea in doing that?” “Describe what you had in your mind.” “Please explain”.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 84 note 1 Philosophy, October 1935, p. 410.

page 85 note 1 He seems, for instance, not to rule out the intensified intelligible connection which we call necessity, and its complement which is impossibility. Near the bottom of p. 420 he speaks of a formula describing “every possible path of every possible gravitating body.”