Explanations in science
What criteria do scientists use when judging explanations?
In general explanations in science are expected to
be logical
be relevant (so they answer the actual question posed)
be consistent with available evidence
draw upon accepted scientific ideas (principles, laws, theories) about the topic
not contradict other accepted scientific ideas
(note – explanations that do not seem to meet all these criteria are sometimes admitted – after all existing ideas, or interpretations of evidence, may sometimes be wrong).
Scientists also tend to prefer explanations that are simple as possible, making as few assumptions as possible.
BEWARE: Whenever someone gives an explanation in science (such as an explanation about why street lamps have an organge glow), it’s almost always possible to ask, “Yes, but why?” For some small children it even seems to be a game – “yes but why, but why, but why, tell me why …” A ‘complete’ explanation (if it is possible) could get very complicated .
Here’s another example. Think about the question ‘why does it rain?’ – a ‘complete’ explanation would involve changes of state, gravity, solar radiation, and many other scientific ideas. Usually when scientists ask for explanations there are many things they are expecting to ‘take for granted’! In order to make any progress, scientists normally have to focus on a limited aspect of a question at one time.
A key think here is that in science, as in other fields, explanations to questions must match the age and level of education/understanding of the person trying to make sense of the explanation. For instance, it would be silly to teach a group of 8-year-olds about isotopes . . . and yet, 8-year-olds might be curious about how archaeologists (like Indiana Jones) can tell the age of dinosaur bones! So, educators try to simplify scientific explanations . . . but, in doing so, they are sometimes accused of teaching things that are simply ‘lies’! That is, things that earlier scientists had found out, but which other scientists disproved later.
For example, books for 8-year-olds frequently have pictures of atoms that look quite different from what we now know atoms probably look like.
So, here’s the thing, do we continue telling ‘lies’ to 8-year-olds and hope they forget about these ‘lies’ when they get to college and learn the ‘real (hard!) facts’, or . . . do we try to give them the up-to-date, ‘real facts’ about atoms right at the tender age of 8, difficult as this might be?
Unfortunately, 8-year-olds are rather impressionable and tend to remember these early images of atoms for pretty much most of their lives, and anyway . . . it’s practically impossible to give 8-year-olds up-to-date explanations about atoms! So, what educators do is . . . tell children the early ‘stories’ about atoms and gradually build up their knowledge, year by year, updating information, often following the historical advances made in atomic structure, until they have a solid foundation for understanding currently accepted explanations about atoms.
Contact us: