What does it mean to "Understand" something?

WIP - summary of what it mean to understand. Do you actually have to "experience" the thing you are attempting to understand (pregnancy, being a different race, being dead) to understand it (I think not). This is a conflating of two different ideas - understanding (to be defined) vs having a first person subjective experience of "what it is like" to be in the situation you are attempting to understand. Obviously we cannot solve the "hard problem of consciousness" and know what it is like to be a dog or a bat, but we can understand these things. Given the number of dog and bat experts out there, obviously some of them understand their subject matter. If you add to the definition of "underand" to also require a personal first person experience of what it is like to be that thigns, then you have defined it so strictly that no person could ever understand anything, and therefore no one in the world understands anything. Thix is clearly not the case, so I think that this is just a really bad and useless definition of "understanding" Some of my associates assert you can't really even "understand" a rock or a table. This is nonsense.

What constitutes a "good explanation"?

Why do people value hearing a good explanation for things they don't understand? Explanations for the current weather, for why someone was late for work, for how chemistry works, for a tough concept in algebra, for moral/religious/philosophical questions, for a devastating flood. People want good explanations because they help them to better understand and make sense of the world around them. This very blog entry, which explains explanations is an example of that. Explanation provides a way to comprehend complex or abstract concepts, and it can help people to form a more complete and accurate understanding of how things work.

A good explanation also helps people to make informed decisions, solve problems, and communicate ideas effectively. When people have a clear and concise explanation for something, they can more easily explain it to others, or use the information to make decisions or take action. It has been determined experimentally, that a person presenting an explanation actually comes to a deeper understanding of the issue he is explaining. The process of providing an explanation actually helps the explainer improve their grasp of the topic. Overall, having a good explanation for things is an important part of learning and making sense of the world.

In addition, and possibly most importantly, having a good explanation can provide a sense of satisfaction or closure. It can help people to feel like they have a grasp on a topic, and give them confidence in their understanding of it. In fact, the "truth value" or correctness of an explanation may sometimes matter less than the positive feeling it gives the person who seeks it. This is because the act of finding an explanation can help to create a sense of predictability and understanding, even if the explanation is not entirely accurate or complete. It is the feeling of understanding, rather than actual understanding that may ultimately matter the most. In a "perfect world", that feeling of understanding would correspond very highly to actual understanding. For example, a primitive pre-scientfic person may accept the explanation for thunder being the gods throwing boulders, and feel that they "get it". This explanation is not correct, but it might suffice for this person. However, it would be entirely inadequate to their task of forming a "weather prediction model" since it doesn't actually correspond to reality.

In addition to the laudable desire to seek an explanation to help increase understanding, people can also sometimes feel a sense of powerlessness or lack of control when they don't have an satisfactory explanation. This can be particularly true in situations where the outcome is important to us or where we feel that we should have some influence over the situation. Seeking explanations is a natural human tendency, and it can be an important way of reducing anxiety, providing clarity, and enabling us to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions. Lacking, but desiring, a good explanation creates negative feelings that we are motivated to get rid of.

When one encounters an event or phenomenon that is unexplained, it is uncomfortable, not entirely dissimilar to the discomfort of being hungry, hot, thirsty, or otherwise distressed. We are motivated to find a way out of that psychological state, to reduce that stress. People seek explanations to dissipate that discomfort. The explanation does not actually have to be accurate to accomplish this, it just needs to be convincing and sufficient to the person who receives it. Ridding oneself of that ill ease is a large part of the motivation for seeking and obtaining an explanation. In this sense a "satisfactory" explanation has a very low bar, epistimologically. It just has to be "good enough" to allow the receiver of the explanation to feel that their understanding has reached an acceptable level.

Uncertainty and lack of understanding can create feelings of anxiety, stress, and confusion. Without a clear explanation, we may not know what to expect, how to respond, or what the consequences of a situation may be. This can be particularly challenging when we are faced with new or unfamiliar situations or when we encounter unexpected events that challenge our assumptions or beliefs.

It is important to note that requests for explanations may sometimes go unanswered. We are familiar with the repetitive childish question "why?" to every statement a parent makes. Some children go through a stage where the experience of asking for and receiving an explanation becomes a game, and the "why" question finally receives a "just because!" answer. At some deep level, things cease to have meaningful explanations, but just "are". Bertrand Russell addressed this in his essay "The Regressive Method of Discovering the Premises of Mathematics," where he wrote: "The world is full of facts, and these facts simply are. They do not derive from anything else, they are not to be explained in terms of anything else. They are unanalyzable, and there is no reason for them." In this passage, Russell is emphasizing that there are certain facts about the world that are "brute facts" in the sense that they exist independently of any explanation or justification. These facts simply are, and there is no underlying reason or cause for them.

We must also recognize that simply desiring an explanation may not be reasonable. Simply because one can pose a question, like "why is it cold in Winter?" does not mean that a meaningful explanation is possible. Some requests for explanations may parse the same, lexically: "why is the case?". But not all such questions actually refer to things that exist or can be explained. Yes, we can answer the question about "why it is cold in Winter?", but may not be able to answer a question about "why does god allow suffering?" or "what is the afterlife like?" or "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?". These questions make implicit assumptions about the nature of religious issues that may not be conceived of as being the same by everyone. They may also involve "category mistakes", where a property is being asked about that doesn't exist, "what color is the the number 2".

So, what is an explanation? It is a statement or set of statements that make something clear or understandable. It is typically backwards pointing, in that it attempts to increase understanding of an event that happened, providing a reason why or how it happened. In doing so, it increases understanding of how the world works, and may enhance our ability to make predictions about similar future events. From an evolutionary perspective, it allows us to form models of the world that will empower us to navigate the world with more certainty and mastery - to anticipate and deal with situations that have yet to occur, that may have some similarity to past, explained, situations.

Explanations are usually constructed to describe a set of facts, and which clarify the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. This description of the facts may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing rules or laws in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined.

It is a means of providing information, clarification, or insight into a concept, idea, or event. An explanation may involve breaking down complex concepts or processes into simpler, more accessible terms or providing additional context or examples to help clarify a point. In general, an explanation is an attempt to provide an understanding of something in a way that can be easily grasped and applied by others.

People often seek explanations for things that they don't understand because explanations provide a sense of understanding, clarity, and predictability. When we encounter something unfamiliar or confusing, we may feel a sense of uncertainty or anxiety, and seeking an explanation can help alleviate these feelings by providing a framework for understanding and making sense of the situation.

Explanations can also help us make better decisions, solve problems, and avoid mistakes in the future. When we have a better understanding of the causes and mechanisms behind a phenomenon or event, we can predict its outcomes, identify patterns or trends, and develop more effective strategies for dealing with similar situations in the future.

Furthermore, seeking explanations is a fundamental human trait that is driven by curiosity and a desire to learn and explore the world around us. We are naturally curious creatures, and seeking explanations is a way of satisfying our innate desire for knowledge and understanding. In many ways, seeking explanations is an essential part of the human experience and a driving force behind our intellectual and cultural evolution.

The main difference between scientific and religious explanations is their underlying methodology and epistemology. Scientific explanations are based on empirical evidence, logic, and reasoning, and they are subject to testing, falsification, and revision based on new evidence or insights. Scientific explanations seek to explain phenomena through natural causes and mechanisms that can be observed and measured. They do not rely on supernatural or mystical beliefs, and they are not based on authority or faith.

On the other hand, religious explanations are often based on faith, authority, and sacred texts, and they rely on beliefs in supernatural or divine entities or forces. Religious explanations seek to explain the nature of the world, the origins of life, and the meaning and purpose of human existence in a spiritual or metaphysical sense. They are not subject to empirical testing or falsification, and they do not rely on the same level of evidence or logic as scientific explanations.

In summary, the key difference between scientific and religious explanations lies in their underlying methods, assumptions, and epistemologies. Scientific explanations are based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning, while religious explanations are often based on faith and authority, and they rely on beliefs in supernatural or divine entities or forces.

In science, we have formalized explanations for the purpose of forming accurate and predictive models of the world. Science exercises a discipline of accepting explanations that meet certain criteria, rather than on how subjectively "good" the explanation may be. Scientic methods are used to develop a model of how the world works. Hypotheses and theories are only useful to the extent that they can explain nature, but explanations about past events are not enough. They must also make predictions about observations that have not yet been made and that can be tested. When there is more than one explanation that can account for data we already have, there must be a way to separate them experimentally. A theory is, therefore, only useful if it makes predictions that are different than other existing theories.

Some of these scientific/philosophical tests for measuring the quality of an explanation can be subsumed under the "Criteria of Adequacy" developed by several people, including Duhem, Popper. In summary, they include:

• Explanatory scope (or breadth) - refers to the range of phenomena or events that an explanation can account for. It refers to the ability of an explanation to provide a broad understanding of multiple related phenomena or events.
• Explanatory power (or depth) - refers to the degree to which an explanation can account for the details and mechanisms of a particular phenomenon or concept. In other words, it refers to the level of complexity and comprehensiveness in an explanation.
• Precision - not vague or subject to interpretation, but detailed and specific
• Fruitfulness (ability of a hypothesis to successfully predict novel and unexpected phenomena) like Fresnel lens dark spot, general relativity, bending around mercury, periodic table, evolution predicts missing links, quantum theory particle discovery
• Consistency - freedom from contradiction with other accepted explanations
• Simplicity - not the brevity of the hypothesis, but the number of assumptions it has to make
• Conservatism - how well the hypothesis fits with what we already know. Does the explanation conserve prior knowledge?
• Modesty (similar to Simplicity - all things being equal, logically less demanding hypotheses and hypotheses that make more modest claims are preferable to hypotheses that entail more assumptions, as are hypotheses that assume events of a familiar sort as opposed to those that assume unfamiliar events)
• Testability - can the explanation be tested, demonstrated, or disproved?

Karl Popper proposed a formal way to determine between multiple explanations that seem to be sufficient, but are incompatible with each other. When there is more than one explanation that can account for the observations we have made, there must be a way to separate them experimentally.: "if H and G are empirically equivalent (make the same predictions, but differ in their underlying assumptions or mechanisms) decide between H and G if one of them has stronger proven predictive power, is not ad-hoc, is a fuller (in scope or depth) explanation. Our inductive success in believing previous theories that had these traits should make us continue to prefer theories of this type."