My query on causality and explanations has several strands to it.
1) if “explaining” means “making things clearer”, not all explanations are causal (others can be interpretive or definitional)
2) If “explaining” means “giving reasons for X to happen”, we are naturally making
1) if “explaining” means “making things clearer”, not all explanations are causal (others can be interpretive or definitional)
2) If “explaining” means “giving reasons for X to happen”, we are naturally making
... a causal argument.
“What explains the origins of conflict?” is a question that has causal language. However, conflict can be caused by multiple, concomitant factors. What explains that some factors are more relevant in certain cases and others are not could be causal or not
“What explains the origins of conflict?” is a question that has causal language. However, conflict can be caused by multiple, concomitant factors. What explains that some factors are more relevant in certain cases and others are not could be causal or not
3) There are explanations that describe, interpret, define or qualify phenomena. These aren’t necessarily causal.
What I want to make clear, though, is that yes, I like causal explanations but I think “explaining something” is definitely MUCH broad-ranging than just causation.
What I want to make clear, though, is that yes, I like causal explanations but I think “explaining something” is definitely MUCH broad-ranging than just causation.
I love thinking about these topics because I teach research methods, and making things clearer is my jam.
I do love explaining things.
I do love explaining things.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
