"explanations"

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: American University
> Reply-To: aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:20:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
> To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: more squiggly lines


>
> And of course the truth of the matter remains that Newtonian physics
> is fully adequate to quite a bit of explanatory activity, even in
> contemporary engineering, and that the attraction between objects
> remains quite a useful *explanatory* apparatus, even if it can be
> subjected to redescription. Just because an explanation cannot reach
> into the mind of god (which, I take it, is the best conceptualization
> of your "definitive explanatory model") does not mean it is not an
> explanation.

It seems to me a good explanation must make accurate predictions and be
based upon a faithful description.

In relation to the natural order,  Newton's law of gravitation makes many
accurate predictions but it does not provide a faithful description of
gravity. In relation to the man-made (i.e. engineered) order, it enjoys some
explanatory status, since, the law is used to explain why certain human
plans fail or succeed such as why a building stands or falls down. In this
context it is as explanation because it make sense of the man-made order.
However, if the plan of the natural order is a mystery, that is only known
to God, the function of a (scientific) explanation is to explain how God
executes his plan but it would not require the scientist to "reach into the
mind of God" and know his plan.

Harry Veeder