When Maths, History and science says it has explained something are they using 'explain' in the same way?

Question

It's a Theory of Knowledge question. Before someone gives the answer I would no I do not want people to write my essay for me, but it would be really helpful for some pointers... maybe some ideas at what I should be looking at, any websites etc.
However if someone does want to write my essay for me that would be great lol!

Answer 1

No, they're different meanings of explain:

Maths - it follows logically from fundamental assumtions.

Science - a model has been developed which accurately predicts results in the real world.

History - errmmm ... what happened has been described sufficiently to explain actions and outcomes?

Answer 2

Math finds a formula that explains it and declares it explained till another formula comes along that explains it better.

Science dreams up a theory that it likes and calls it the truth till someone disproves it with evidence that is contrary to the much beloved theory. The person who finds the evidence that disproves the accepted theory is usually vilified at first and said to be Charlton or even a liar who fabricated the evidence. After enough people actually look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion the people defending the old idea quietly change sides and pretend that they knew the truth all along.

History has a much easier way of explaining things. The one who wins the war gets to write the history books. The victor creates a patriotic popular fantasy that tells how they always did everything in a moral sportsman like manner where they fought for the truth and won fair and square without harming anyone but the so-called bad people. In this history of course the looser is vilified and blamed for everything bad that happened in the conflict.

It usually takes a couple of generations for any thing that even vaguely resembles the truth to come out. As the last surviving members of any group that can profit from the mythology that has been created die out, the truth can then be told.

It is nearly always almost the complete opposite of the popular fantasy that has been spun.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 3

It's all a question of degrees. Some sciences require a "harder" proof than others. Others are looser because there is a limit to how thoroughly something can be proven and a compelling model is often worthy o consideration even though it is not completely hermetic.
Mathematics is where you would find the harder proofs. A mathematical explanation is usually the reverse of an operation, or a vivid visual demonstration. Simple example: How is it that 3x4=12? Because 4+4+4=12, because 12/3=4, etc... Mathematical proofs tend to be airtight, because it is an entirelly closed system.
In science (I assume you mean hard sciences like physics), things are a little similar, but theory is a bit more malleable than in mathematics. Newton observed things fell. He posits a force called gravity to explain it. As long as gravity explains all such phnomenon, it remained useful. When Einstein and other modern physicians came along, certain experiences they made challenged that view of the world. Gravity is now considered to be an effect of the space-time continuum. (Don't ask me to explain how :) ). So in physics, a demonstration is good as long as it remains an adequate explanation for known phenomenons. When something new comes along, some refinement of the theory is necessary.
In history, psychology, etc..., the "softer" sciences, it is understood that researchers work with a minimal amount of information. The laboratory neatness and the pure mathematical models of the hard sciences are gone. History, for example, relies on archaeological data which is incomplete by nature. Just as in physics, though, historians will posit a theory and then test it against available fact. But because such data is incomplete, history leaves a lot more room for speculation and theory (in the more widely-accepted sense, not the scientific one).
In philosophy, all bets are off. The Queen of sciences is fickle. :)

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

What they have done is given the most rational logical answer that can be proven and reproduced. If there were only ten people and they say the sky is green does that make it green. If you continually repeat an experiment and the conclusion comes out the same then you could pretty well say the answer is conclusive. An explanation is not necessarily factual. An explanation is a means of describing an event. I could explain to you in my own terms how I got here, but that does not necessarily make it true. Archaeologists have tried to explain how the pyramids were built but that does not make their findings an absolute where there can be no doubt. Then when we are discussing mathematics we are talking about pure science where there can in most cases only be one absolutely correct answer without ambiguity. All we need to do is to explain to another in terms that would be understood, how we came to that conclusion.

Answer 5

Different, 'cos of the different things explained.
Mathematical truths, if true, are generally thought to be necessarily true. So a mathematical explanation will tell us that 12 / 3 = 4 (for example) because that's the only way things could possibly have been. Now I think of it, that hasn't really explained anything. Perhaps the only mathematical 'explanations' are those that break down complex mathematical formulae into bite size chunks, which we can understand, and then show us how they fit together into something too complex for us to grasp all at once. If you've ever seen a proof of pythagorus' theorum, for example, you'll see what I mean.
Scientific truths are only contingently true (i.e. not necessarily) so you need to go and look at the world to work them out. it's often concerned with causal explanation that appeals to laws (e.g. the water boiled because it had reached 100 degrees c, and (here's the law) water boils at 100 degrees c.) But that doesn't explain why the laws are the way they are. So you might want to differentiate between why THIS pan of water boiled at 100 degrees c, and why WATER IN GENERAL boils at 100 degrees c. The latter deals with generalities, e.g. the chemical structure of water, rather than THIS pan of water. I'm no scientist, but I think this is probably only explicable with reference to other laws (e.g. hydrogen and oxygen form molecular and ionic bonds, heating them up weakens these bonds, something like that.) So perhaps science can't ultimately explain laws; it can just find out what they are, and then use them to explain other things (including other, less basic laws.) maybe this will all boil down to just one law in the end. but then how will that be explained?
History's by far the most interesting (if you ask me), because its so messy. In theory, it should be able to give a causal explanation of why bush invaded iraq, for example, with reference to physical laws about the movement of subatomic particles under influenc of various forces. But that wouldn't be a historical explanation; that would involve 'historical forces', e.g. people's fear of terrorism after 911, bush's desire to be re-elected, the possibility that saddam had WDM etc. I'm not a historian, but I guess the best kind of historical explanation is one that lets us understand why the people involved acted the way they did, by explaining why they thought it was a good idea. That is, it refers to the reasons people had, or thought they had. Its a rational explanation. They're my favourite.

Answer 6

'Explain' means the same thing, just the method of each discipline differs, so the three resulting explanations will be different (I hope), but each may be correct, and equally valid.

Answer 7

Typical student,MAD AS.