Difference between explanation and statements

[SkepticalScience]

I was hoping someone could give me a good quote that could illustrate the difference between a statement and an explanation.

As I read creationists websites, I notice that none of what their "science" shows really explains anything. They are simply making statements - that could or could not be true.

So while evolution gives us an explanation of why/how we have all the diversity of life that we see - creationists don't really explain it. They just make a statement that the reason we see all this variety of life is because it was designed.

But that's not an explanation the same way that evolution is an explanation of what we see.

So I'd love to get some type of quote that could illustrate this distinction I see.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
SS

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Excelent topic. I wonder exactly the same thing. Maybe we should start by defining what we mean by "explanation", and why some methodologies to reach it are better than others.

 

[Orangutan]

They don't need explanation and statements.

"God did it" is both.

O.

 

[SkepticalScience]

Thanks Bodhi. . .

I think you are right about the starting point. Without a dictionary, I think an explanation ties together observations.

Do explanations always make predictions? I'm not sure. . . but I think it may be a big part of the difference. Maybe the difference could also be that statements NEED explanations . . . but again, I'm not so sure about that either.

Your comment Orangutan is precisely why I asked the question. I'd love to have a thought to through back at people who use statements as explanations.

Maybe something like:

"Bob killed Mike"

That's just a statement. But saying, "Bob shot mike with this gun we found at the crime scene. His fingerprints are all over the gun, and we know that Mike was messing around with Bob's wife."

I think that's more of an explanation. . .

But I am not sure.

Any thoughts folks??

 

[Ashles]

My first thought is that:

An explanation is checkable against other sources or evidence - a statement isn't necessarily.

Although that doesn't really hold up greatly now I think about it.


Hmm, this seems like it should be easier than it actually is.

What the Creationists sites offer are explanations - just not correct ones.

I remember the first episode of Jonathan Creek whereby he appears to solve the murder in an incredibly elaborate and complex way.
Maddie says "So that's how she did it"
And Jonathan says something like "It's one explanation. However, it's almost certainly not the way it was done."

So I'm going to change my mind.
I'm altering my definition to saying that an explanation is a type of statement. Statements are literally anything that is said or expressed. Explanation would be a sub-category of statement that involves consequences or series of events.

"Bob is dead" and "Bob killed Mike" are statements. "Bob killed Mike with a hammer" is a statement. "Bob killed Mike because he stole his Monkey" is an explanation.

Interestingly, if somebody asks why Mike's head is so bashed in, "Bob killed Mike with a hammer" now becomes an explanation because a series of events or consequences is now implied - Bob used hammer -> Head bashed in.