This post refines slightly the post of conductive logic, the most common type of every day logic: TIP of the day (logic): Conductive logic ... the most common form of Commentary and relates explanation to the post on questions TIP of the day (logic): Bruner, Bromberge and erotectic logic.
From Because:How to Analyze and Evaluate Ordinary Reasoning by G. Randolph Mayes of Sacramento State University:
[quote]
5.1 Two kinds of rationale: argument and explanation
In section 3 we observed that there are two kinds of reason: evidence and cause. These two kinds of reason correspond to two kinds of rationale: argument and explanation. We define these concepts as follows:
-
An argument is a rationale in which the reason presents evidence in support of a claim made in the conclusion. Its purpose is to provide a basis for believing the conclusion to be true.
-
An explanation is a rationale in which the reason presents a cause of some fact represented by the conclusion. Its purpose is to help us understand how or why that fact occurs.
The best way to remember the difference between argument and explanation is to think of them as answering two different questions.
- An argument answers the question: How do you know? This is a request for evidence.
- An explanation answers the question: Why is that so? This is a request for a cause.
Here is a diagram representing these relationships.
It is important to develop a solid grasp of the relationships represented above, and to learn to use the terms exactly as they have been defined. All of these words have meanings in ordinary language that are not precisely the same as the ones we give them here. For example, most people think of an argument as a kind of verbal dispute, but here it a particular kind of logical structure: it is a rationale in which evidence is given for the truth of some claim. Similarly, we often think of an explanation as just a description or account of the facts. Here, however, an explanation is another kind of logical structure: it is a rationale that provides a cause of some accepted fact.
from another educational institution's Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Explanations and Nonarguments we get another perspective on the distinction:
[quote]
| D. How to distinguish arguments from explanations. |
|
|
1. By carefully reading the text, you can discern several important differences between an argument and an explanation. |
|
|
|
a. Do a group of statements give evidence, grounds, or reasons for some other statement? |
|
|
|
b. Is the purported conclusion better known than the purported premisses? |
|
|
|
c. Is a causal connection asserted or implied? |
|
|
|
d. What is the author's purpose in offering the passage? |
|
|
|
e. What is the context of the passage? |
|
|
2. In general, these questions point to the difference between arguments and explanations. (Nevertheless, as shown below, arguments and explanations do, on occasion, overlap.) |
|
|
|
Argument
|
Explanation
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) expresses an inference |
does not usually express an inference |
|
|
|
|
|
(2) offers evidence, grounds or reasons |
offers an account why |
|
|
|
|
|
(3) goes from well known statements to statements less well known |
gives less well known statements why a better known statement is true |
|
|
|
|
|
(4) draws a logical connection between statements |
describes a causal connection |
|
|
|
|
|
(5) has the purpose to establish the truth of a statement |
has the purpose to give an account of something |
|
|
|
|
|
So when On What We Know We Don't Know: Explanation, Theory, Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them by Sylvain Bromberger. gives the conditions for explanation:
- the question is sound i.e. has a correct answer
- the teacher knows the correct answer
- the student does not know the correct answer ... and may or may not be able to identify possible correct answers
- the teacher presents the facts that the students needs to learn to know the right answer
- the teacher presents instruction need to remove impediments of the student to learn the right answer (think remove erroneous beliefs blocking understanding)
it may look like a great template for Bible study. However, there is one big glitch that we often miss - only a small portion of Bible study is based on cause and effect i.e. most of Bible Study is not the domain of explanation. Rather it is the realm of argumentation.
It is generally not considered good form to mix explanation and argumentation because they may follow different rules (note "may" some explanations are in the form of a deductive or abductive argument). So a valid conductive argument is generally restricted to subarguments rather than subarguments + subexplanations. This means that a Bible teacher spends the majority of their time persuading/convincing the student that their argument for their interpretation of the text is the/a valid interpretation.
Translating this back into question format, that means the primary question for students of Bible study is "how do you know that ..." and that it the question that the teacher must prepare for ... on nearly every point.
