3 ms·

I must say I didnt quite understand how explanation differs from description (other than that the former encompasses the latter, but not vice-versa). What shoul

I must say I didnt quite understand how explanation differs from description (other than that the former encompasses the latter, but not vice-versa). What should be added to a description to make it an explanation?

shawndumas 16y ago
If the former always encompasses the latter but not vice-versa then, tautologically, the latter cannot be equivalent to the former. For example since all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs then dogs and animals are not coterminous. So at the very least we seem to agree that description and explanation are not coterminous. But, and here is the interesting part, if that response was not quite satisfactory then reflect for a moment why. I'll wait. (Done!? Wow you're quick!) That response was a description of one aspect of the difference between a description and an explanation and not an explanation. As to an explanation it actually consists of, in part, descriptions so sometimes it's a little difficult to see at times. So it's understandable to be somewhat confused. Let's say you come home and a friend that is staying over, unbeknown to you, has a tea kettle on and it's whistling. You hear a whistling sound and give you're friend a curious look and they reply, 'It's coming from the tea kettle.' That would be a description. An explanation would go something like this: Heat excites the molecules of water increasing the space between them, causing the steam to take up more space than the water and cooled air did. That builds pressure... etc. The short answer is that a description has detail and an explanation also has reason. Does that help?
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Hmm. Interesting. I need to think about this :)
  - shawndumas 16y ago
    If you can though, please let me know what you come up with either way. I frequently find that some people (intelligent people mind you) struggle with this concept. I am always looking for better ways to explain it and your input might help. In the meantime read my other response[1] to the same question in this very thread. Thanks. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1631652 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1631652

shawndumas 16y ago

If the former always encompasses the latter but not vice-versa then, tautologically, the latter cannot be equivalent to the former. For example since all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs then dogs and animals are not coterminous. So at the very least we seem to agree that description and explanation are not coterminous. But, and here is the interesting part, if that response was not quite satisfactory then reflect for a moment why. I'll wait. (Done!? Wow you're quick!) That response was a description of one aspect of the difference between a description and an explanation and not an explanation. As to an explanation it actually consists of, in part, descriptions so sometimes it's a little difficult to see at times. So it's understandable to be somewhat confused. Let's say you come home and a friend that is staying over, unbeknown to you, has a tea kettle on and it's whistling. You hear a whistling sound and give you're friend a curious look and they reply, 'It's coming from the tea kettle.' That would be a description. An explanation would go something like this: Heat excites the molecules of water increasing the space between them, causing the steam to take up more space than the water and cooled air did. That builds pressure... etc. The short answer is that a description has detail and an explanation also has reason. Does that help?

shadowfox 16y ago
Hmm. Interesting. I need to think about this :)
- shawndumas 16y ago
  If you can though, please let me know what you come up with either way. I frequently find that some people (intelligent people mind you) struggle with this concept. I am always looking for better ways to explain it and your input might help. In the meantime read my other response[1] to the same question in this very thread. Thanks. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1631652 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1631652