Explanation
A set of statements clarifying causes, context, and consequences of facts.
An explanation is a series of statements meant to describe a set of facts by shedding light on what caused them, the context they occurred in, and what followed from them. It can set out rules or laws, or clarify existing ones as they apply to the objects or events under consideration. In philosophy, an explanation is a set of statements that makes the existence or occurrence of something—an object, event, or state of affairs—understandable. Common forms include causal explanation; the deductive-nomological model, which fits the thing to be explained under a general law so it can be derived through deduction (for instance, “All gases expand when heated; this gas was heated; therefore, it expanded”); and statistical explanation, which places the thing under a generalization that offers inductive support (for example, “Most tobacco users get cancer; this person used tobacco; therefore, they got cancer”). Explanations of human behavior typically refer to the subject’s beliefs, desires, and other relevant facts, assuming the behavior is at least somewhat rational—so explaining why someone took off their coat might mention that they felt hot, wanted to cool down, and believed removing the coat would help.
In science, it is generally assumed that science provides explanations, not just descriptions, and that a theory of scientific explanation should outline the structure of such explanations. This implies a contrast between explanations typical of science and those outside it, as well as between explanation and other activities. Much recent philosophical work, however, assumes a substantial continuity between scientific explanations and at least some ordinary, non-scientific ones, with the latter containing in a rough form features that appear more detailed and precise in the former. The task of a theory of explanation is then to capture what is common to both. A key theory is Hempel’s deductive-nomological model, which, despite widespread criticism, remains the starting point for most discussions.
The difference between explanations and arguments comes down to the kind of question asked. In arguments, we start with a doubted fact and try to support it; in explanations, we start with an accepted fact and ask why it happened or what caused it. Arguments aim to show that something is, will be, or should be the case; explanations aim to show why or how something is or will be. For example, if Fred and Joe disagree on whether Fred’s cat has fleas, Joe might argue, “Your cat has fleas—look, it’s scratching.” But if they both accept the cat has fleas, they might explain, “The reason is the damp weather.” Arguments contribute knowledge; explanations contribute understanding. Arguments and explanations often resemble each other in how they are used rhetorically, which causes confusion in critical thinking. This is because people are sometimes unclear whether they are arguing or explaining; the same words and phrases are used for both; the terms “explain” and “explanation” are often used in arguments; and explanations are frequently embedded in arguments and presented as if they were arguments themselves.
The term “explanation” is also used in the context of justification—for instance, explaining why a belief is true. Justification can be seen as an explanation of why a belief is true or how one knows something. It is important to recognize when an explanation is not a justification: one can give a detailed, believable account without offering any proof.
Many different events, objects, and facts require explanation, and many different things can serve as explanations. Aristotle identified four archetypes, thought since ancient times to be universal kinds of explanation, though their precise definitions and relationships remain unclear. Types of explanation involve appropriate reasoning, such as deductive-nomological, functional, historical, psychological, reductive, teleological, and methodological explanations. Theories of explanation include the deductive-nomological model, the statistical relevance model, the causal mechanical model, the unificationist model, and pragmatic theories, which hold that explanations are whatever people accept as answers to certain questions.
- field
- Philosophy, Science
- known_for
- Distinction between explanation and argument; Deductive-nomological model
- forms
- Causal, Deductive-nomological, Statistical, Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological, Methodological
- key_theories
- Deductive-nomological model, Statistical relevance model, Causal Mechanical model, Unificationist model, Pragmatic theories
Lore & Background
An explanation is a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts that clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. It may establish rules or laws, and clarifies existing rules or laws in relation to any objects or phenomena examined. In philosophy, an explanation is a set of statements which render understandable the existence or occurrence of an object, event, or state of affairs. Among its most common forms are causal explanation, deductive-nomological explanation (involving subsuming the explanandum under a generalization from which it may be derived in a deductive argument), and statistical explanation (involving subsuming the explanandum under a generalization that gives it inductive support). Explanations of human behavior usually rely on the subject's beliefs, desires and other relevant facts, operating under the assumption that the behavior in question is rational to some extent.
Reader's Guide
The article distinguishes explanations from arguments: arguments start from a doubted fact and try to support it, while explanations start with an accepted fact and ask why or what caused it. Arguments aim to contribute knowledge, whereas explanations aim to contribute understanding. The difference is often blurred in rhetorical use, causing difficulty in critical thinking. The article also notes that the term 'explanation' is sometimes used in the context of justification, but it is important to be aware when an explanation is not a justification—one may give a detailed account without giving a single proof. In scientific contexts, the notion of 'scientific explanation' suggests a contrast between explanations characteristic of science and those outside it, though recent philosophical literature assumes substantial continuity between scientific and ordinary explanations. A notable theory is Hempel's Deductive-nomological model, which has been widely criticized but remains the starting point for discussion.
Did You Know?
- The deductive-nomological explanation involves subsuming the explanandum under a generalization from which it may be derived in a deductive argument, e.g., 'All gases expand when heated; this gas was heated; therefore, t
- Statistical explanation involves subsuming the explanandum under a generalization that gives it inductive support, e.g., 'Most people who use tobacco contract cancer; this person used tobacco; therefore, this person cont
- Explanations of human behavior rely on the subject's beliefs, desires, and other relevant facts, assuming the behavior is rational to some extent.
- The difference between explanations and arguments is that arguments aim to contribute knowledge, whereas explanations aim to contribute understanding.
The Many Faces of Explanation
An explanation is fundamentally a collection of statements designed to illuminate the causes, context, and consequences behind a set of facts. It can establish new rules or clarify how existing laws apply to particular objects and phenomena. In philosophy, the core task is rendering the existence or occurrence of something understandable. Several canonical forms exist: causal explanations trace effects back to their sources; deductive-nomological explanations subsume a specific case under a general law from which it follows deductively, as when concluding a gas expanded because all gases expand when heated; statistical explanations rely on inductive generalizations, such as linking tobacco use to elevated cancer risk. Explanations of human conduct typically invoke the subject's beliefs, desires, and the assumption of some degree of rationality—so removing a coat might be explained by feeling hot, wanting relief, and believing the coat's removal would deliver it. Aristotle recognized four archetypal kinds of explanation long ago, and modern taxonomy extends further to include functional, historical, psychological, reductive, teleological, and methodological varieties.
Explanation Versus Argument
The boundary between explaining and arguing is one of the most practically important distinctions in critical thinking. An argument begins with a doubted claim and seeks to establish its truth; an explanation begins with an accepted fact and asks why or how that fact came to be. If two people disagree about whether a cat has fleas, one might point to the scratching as evidence—that is an argument. But once both agree the cat is infested, the question shifts to cause: perhaps the damp weather created favorable conditions. That shift from 'is it so?' to 'why is it so?' marks the move from argument to explanation. Arguments aim to contribute knowledge; explanations aim to contribute understanding. Yet in everyday rhetoric the two blur constantly. People frequently cannot tell which mode they are operating in, the same vocabulary serves both purposes, and the word 'explain' often appears inside arguments. Explanations are routinely embedded within arguments to function as supporting premises, which makes critical evaluation of claims considerably more difficult.
Theories and the Scientific Ideal
A persistent assumption in philosophical discussion is that science delivers a single, unified kind of explanation, distinct from the looser accounts we use in daily life. Recent literature, however, has tended to see substantial continuity between scientific and ordinary explanation, with the former simply embodying in a more precise, rigorous, and detailed form features that are present in a rougher way in the latter. The task of a theory of explanation, on this view, is to capture what is common to both. The most influential framework remains Hempel's deductive-nomological model, which, despite widespread criticism, still serves as the starting point for most subsequent theorizing. Competing and complementary approaches include the statistical relevance model, the causal-mechanical model, the unificationist model, and pragmatic theories that hold an explanation is simply whatever a community will accept as an adequate answer to a given question. This plurality underscores that no single formal structure has yet captured the full range of what we do when we explain.
When Explaining Is Not Justifying
A subtle but consequential distinction separates explanation from justification. Justification concerns why a belief is true or how one knows what one knows; it is an account of the warrant behind a claim. Explanation, by contrast, addresses why a fact obtains or what brought it about. One can offer a detailed, coherent, and entirely believable account of a phenomenon without supplying a single piece of proof for any underlying belief. In other words, a person may narrate a situation in rich causal detail while providing no justification whatsoever for the premises on which that narrative rests. Recognizing this gap is essential for clear thinking: a vivid causal story is not the same thing as a demonstration that the story's assumptions are correct. Confusing the two modes leads to the error of treating persuasive storytelling as though it were logical proof, a mistake that pervades everyday discourse, legal reasoning, and even some scientific commentary. Awareness of the distinction helps listeners evaluate whether they are being shown why something happened or being shown that something is the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Explanation in philosophy?
In philosophy, an explanation is a structured set of statements that makes sense of why something exists, happens, or is the way it is. It goes beyond merely listing facts by clarifying the underlying causes, broader context, and resulting consequences of a given event or state of affairs.
What are the main forms of Explanation?
Philosophers recognize several distinct forms, including causal, deductive-nomological, statistical, functional, historical, psychological, reductive, teleological, and methodological explanations. Each form addresses a different kind of 'why' question, from mechanistic causes to purpose-driven accounts.
What is the Deductive-Nomological model?
The Deductive-Nomological model is a key theoretical framework proposing that a phenomenon is explained when it can be logically deduced from general laws together with specific initial conditions. It has been influential but also heavily critiqued, giving rise to alternatives such as the Unificationist and Pragmatic models.
How is Explanation different from an argument?
A central distinction in the philosophy of explanation is that an argument aims to establish the truth of a conclusion, while an explanation aims to make a fact or event understandable. In short, arguments answer 'Is this true?' whereas explanations answer 'Why is this the case?'
Why is Explanation important in both philosophy and science?
Explanation sits at the heart of scientific inquiry and everyday reasoning because it is what transforms raw data into meaningful understanding. Philosophers have devoted significant effort to pinning down exactly what makes an explanation successful, leading to competing frameworks like the Causal-Mechanical, Statistical Relevance, and Unificationist models.
More in Philosophical Concepts And Theories 1-24
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record