Why the Difference Between Explanation and Argument Matters to Science Education

Science & Education 25 (3-4):251-275 (2016)

Ingo Brigandt
University of Alberta
Contributing to the recent debate on whether or not explanations ought to be differentiated from arguments, this article argues that the distinction matters to science education. I articulate the distinction in terms of explanations and arguments having to meet different standards of adequacy. Standards of explanatory adequacy are important because they correspond to what counts as a good explanation in a science classroom, whereas a focus on evidence-based argumentation can obscure such standards of what makes an explanation explanatory. I provide further reasons for the relevance of not conflating explanations with arguments (and having standards of explanatory adequacy in view). First, what guides the adoption of the particular standards of explanatory adequacy that are relevant in a scientific case is the explanatory aim pursued in this context. Apart from explanatory aims being an important aspect of the nature of science, including explanatory aims in classroom instruction also promotes students seeing explanations as more than facts, and engages them in developing explanations as responses to interesting explanatory problems. Second, it is of relevance to science curricula that science aims at intervening in natural processes, not only for technological applications, but also as part of experimental discovery. Not any argument enables intervention in nature, as successful intervention specifically presupposes causal explanations. Students can fruitfully explore in the classroom how an explanatory account suggests different options for intervention.
Keywords explanation  argument  standards of explanatory adequacy  explanatory aims  intervention  nature of science
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11191-016-9826-6
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 49,040
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference.Judea Pearl - 2000 - Cambridge University Press.
Science, Truth, and Democracy.Philip Kitcher - 2001 - Oxford University Press.

View all 54 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Explanation in Metaphysics?Johannes Persson - 2011 - Metaphysica 12 (2):165-181.
Biological Explanation.Angela Potochnik - 2013 - In Kostas Kampourakis (ed.), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Springer. pp. 49-65.
Distinguishing Explanatory From Nonexplanatory Fictions.Alisa Bokulich - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):725-737.
Explanatory Depth.Brad Weslake - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (2):273-294.
Explanation and Understanding: An Alternative to Strevens’ Depth.Angela Potochnik - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):29-38.
Moral Facts and Best Explanations.Brian Leiter - 2001 - Social Philosophy and Policy 18 (2):79.
Mechanistic Explanation in Engineering Science.Dingmar van Eck - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3):349-375.


Added to PP index

Total views
90 ( #100,199 of 2,311,025 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #38,611 of 2,311,025 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature