H. P. Grice and The Converasational Why

explanation Philosophy of science, epistemology An account characteristically telling us why something exists or happens or must exist or happen. To explain is to increase knowledge, remove perplexity, and explication diminish surprise. All theories have the function of explaining, but the nature of explanation is a philosophical issue. In an explanation, the thing being explained is called the explanandum, and the things used to explain it are called the explanans. An explanation is a general conclusion about the explanandum derived from the explanans. The standard view about the nature of scientific explanation is the covering law model of explanation. This view was proposed by Mill and fully elaborated by Hempel, and it holds that to explain is to put a particular event under a general law. This model is further divided into two types. For deductive-nomological explanation, if a law is deterministic, we may deduce an explanation of an event from the law and the antecedent conditions. For statistical explanation, if a law is probabilistic or statistical, the explanation is probabilistic. One difficulty faced by the covering model is how to explain the highest level of general laws. Various alternative views about explanation have been developed. Some philosophers suggest a causal approach, claiming that to explain is to identify the underlying mechanisms that produce events, states, and regularities. Others believe that to explain is provide a coherent unification of phenomena. Still others argue that explanation needs to be adjusted to the epistemic or practical needs of the audience. There is debate about whether explanation requires necessity (thus ruling out statistical explanation) and about how claims to natural necessity could be justified. There is also debate over Dilthey’s contrast between scientific explanation and historical understanding. Some argue that particularistic historical explanation and narrative explanation differs in kind from explanation in terms of laws. To explain a human action is normally to appeal to the beliefs and desires that provide the agent’s reasons for so acting. Whether this kind of explanation can conform to the covering law model is also a matter of controversy. “An individual fact is said to be explained, by pointing out its cause, that by stating the law or laws of causation, of which its production is an instance.” The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. VII