James Bakese is a middle aged man from a remote village in Soweto, South Africa. It was a joyous moment when he landed himself a job with a Research Company in Johannesburg. After three years however, he went back home sickly and having lost weight. Some of his relatives claimed that this was due to a curse and thus advised him to sacrifice a goat to the ancestors. On the other hand, the Christians concluded that he was demon possessed and thus all he needed was to take some time in prayer, followed by a deliverance service. However some instructed him to go for a medical check up to determine what the cause of his physical problems was. After being tested, it was discovered that he was HIV+ and was immediately placed on Anti Retroviral medication. The story is just a representation of how different phenomena is viewed and explained by different groups of people. Science in general terms (that is if taken as a means of getting human knowledge) may be defined as “a procedure for the invention and evaluation of hypotheses” (Kemerling, 2002) which can be utilized in explaining different phenomena. On the other hand, unscientific explanations are beliefs and “truths” that may be unchallengeable but have no supported assertions. This essay explains the differences between scientific and unscientific explanations.
Scientific Explanations
Scientific explanations give proposals that are tentative but that can be evaluated, modified and changed if newer evidence is found. Historically, explanation is related to causation or to explain a phenomenon and to identify its cause. However in modern times, the description of the concept of explanation has changed. This was especially because there were theories that claimed the existence of processes and entities that are unobservable (Kemerling, 2002). Many of the scientific explanations can be requested by means of ‘why’ questions even though the question is not directly framed that way. For example why does the moon turn silvery during the sun eclipse? One of the most useful models for the scientific explanation’s structure is that of deductive argument and its conclusion is that event that will be explained (Kemerling, 2002). The premises for the above argument are one, statements (factual) of circumstances and second, scientific hypotheses that are offered to link the circumstances to that outcome stated in the conclusion. The difference between any prediction and the explanation of the event is if it had taken place (Kemerling, 2002). This means that any conclusion of the argument is only true if all the premises are also true. It should be noted that the truth in the hypotheses (which captures the relationship between the circumstances and those events that are to be discussed) must remain questionable. This means that the explanation’s quality is determined by the degree to which the hypothesis is reliable (Kemerling, 2002).
In order to understand scientific explanation, one needs to distinguish between one, ‘explanandum’ which is the fact that needs to be explained and secondly, ‘explanans’ which is the hypothesis that helps in the explaining (Cohen 2005). If for example one says that “Mary has a common cold because she was rained on,” the explanandum is that ‘Mary has a common cold” while the “explanans” is that “Mary was rained on”. The theory of explanation specifies the relationship between the explanandum and the explanans, which is commonly referred to as the explanatory relevance. Typically all scientific explanations give in detail the events of a certain kind. They must however be placed as hypotheses and can either be rejected or accepted after empirical evidence is given. Moreover, scientific explanations must be testable (Cohen, 2005).
A hypothesis is testable if at least some of the predictions that have been made based on that hypothesis can confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis (Cohen, 2005). It is not possible to collect all the evidence and as such, it is possible to encounter evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that has been carefully constructed. Of course, this means that not at any time will the hypothesis be 100% confirmed by the evidence but only in varying degrees. The methods of testing a hypothesis can be direct or indirect. Direct testing is when a scientist observes the event that is described by the hypothesis and it is possible for him or her to see how it relates to the event that has been predicted by the hypothesis (Cohen, 2005). On the other hand, indirect testing occurs when the event (explanans) cannot be observed directly, meaning that one must use other observations that are entailed by the explanans.
Scientific explanations can be evaluated using these three criteria. One, with all the factors remaining constant, a hypothesis at least should be compatible with another previously well established hypothesis (Cohen, 2005). A good hypothesis should also have predictive and explanatory power meaning that its observable consequences (that are deducible) are to be more. Finally, with everything else being equal, a hypothesis that is simpler is better than a complex one. This means that it should posit fewer entities, simpler mathematical equations and be more natural (Cohen, 2005).
With this in mind, how is one to conduct scientific investigation, or rather what is the procedure of conducting a scientific research? One, the problem should be stated meaning that one makes a statement of the phenomenon that will be investigated. Of course, this is very important as this is the focus as one continues with the method (Kemerling 2002). Secondly, preliminary hypothesis should be devised, which are the good guesses of what the results or the answers will be. Any guess that is made will be acceptable and thus should not be dismissed. These guesses should however, be guided by what the previous established theories have stated (Cohen, 2005). Thirdly, additional information should be sought. The researcher should look at the phenomenon and get as many facts as he can for this will help him or her gain more knowledge about the preliminary notions. Additional facts to the ones that were intended are also obtained at this point (Kemerling, 2002).The next step would be to test the consequences; meaning that the facts will have to be analysed to get the true picture on whether these consequences occur or not. The consequences of the theory are tested through a controlled experiment and if the hypothesis is right, then proper deductions will be the result but if not, one must move a step backwards and figure out another hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be put into application; apply the new explanation to the problem (that had originally been created) to arrive at that explanation. This cannot be done once and should therefore be repeated twice and again until the satisfactory solution is arrived at (Kemerling, 2002). Experimentation is very important as it confirms a hypothesis, doing away with any likely alternatives and therefore scientists always device experiments but only within the context of theory that is well designed. This means that scientific explanations do not rely only on observations but sometimes one will need to go a step further and conduct an experiment (Kemerling, 2002).
Unscientific Explanations
Science can be defined as the human effort to understand the natural world and how that world works, which is done with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. This is done through observation of natural phenomena and/or through experimentation. Therefore, anything that is to be explained scientifically must be based on either observation or experimentation (Railsback, 2009). In many cases, scientific explanations answer the question “why” and not only the question “what”. On the contrary unscientific explanations will only answer the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. They are also to do with common sense. For example, the explanation that “the moon becomes silvery during the sun eclipse” is not scientific for although this can be noticed through observation, it is a “common sense” explanation (Hauser, 2002). However if one states the reasons why it turns silvery, the statement would be scientific; for to know this, it would require keen observation and scientific theory to support it. However, not all ‘why’ questions may be scientific as they may require one to only use logic. For example if one asks a person, “Why have you come?” This does not require any scientific explanation. The other difference between scientific and unscientific explanations is that experiments are usually conducted to verify the cause or the state of phenomena for the former but not for the latter (Hauser, 2002).
This may require sophisticated technology and much time to conclude. On the other hand, unscientific explanations are based on observations that may not be proved true), beliefs (religious and superstitious) and tales (Hauser, 2002). One may claim that a sickly person has been cursed, though this may be true or false, the “cursing” process causing the sickness cannot be verified through observation or experiment. The demon possession is also unscientific since it falls short of the scientific requirements. Sometimes people have come to believe in some in some phenomena until they can describe them in a way that one may think they are scientific explanations (Railsback, 2009). When for example one states that boils are caused by taking some types of food, this may be seen as a fact until the scientific research and experiments are conducted to disapprove the believe and explain that boils are in fact caused by a special type of bacteria.
In conclusion, scientific explanations are different from unscientific explanations due to the fact that they are conducted and presented differently. While scientific explanation must be hypothesised and then proved, unscientific explanations are only beliefs that are untested.
References
Cohen, C. & Copi, M. (2005). Science and hypothesis. Web.
Hauser, H. (1992). Act, aim, and unscientific explanation. Web.
Kerling, G. (2002). Scientific explanations: The structure of explanations. Web.
Railsback. (2009). What is science? Web.