Do good explanations have to be true

Good explanations in different AOKs

Initial Response and Ideas

Role of Truth in Different AOKs

Real-world Examples that Relate

Initial Response: No

Explanations can be used as an attempt to justify untrue things

Just because an explanation is wrong doesn't mean that it can't be articulated and structure in an impressive manner

Human Sciences

Natural Sciences

Supported by evidence

Atomic Structure in Chemistry

Natural Sciences

Human Sciences

The truthfulness of an explanation is not determined by its quality

Counterpoints

The point of an explanation is to inform others, to teach new knowledge in a manner that is easy to digest. If the explanation is not true, then it does not inform. Thus, how can it be a good explanation?

Draws a reasonable conclusion based on the interpretation of said evidence

Informs and educates others

No bias and is solely focused on empirical data

Truth is extremely important in the Natural Sciences AOK because all conclusions are based on empirical data to eliminate bias

However, this truth can eventually be proven incorrect with new data. Does this retract from its original "goodness"?

Theory of spontaneous generation vs Biogenesis

Theory of evolution vs Theological explanations

Interpretations of a Piece of Art

Different people may have different interpretations of the same piece of artwork. People often have reasoning behind these interpretations and many can at least give a quick explanation on their ideas

However, their interpretation and thus, their explanation may not be what the artist intended. This would be that it isn't "true". Despite this, their explanation is still good

Arts

Maths

Truth is paramount in maths due to the fact that it is a closed system. There cannot be a half right answer in maths, there are only right and wrong ones. Thus, in order to explain something, it must be true

Arts

Maths

A reasonable conclusion based on the interpretation fo said evidence

Specific Example: J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series as an allegory for war

Refers back to the art in order to structure a reasoning

Are "untrue" explanations only untrue due to perspective? If one's perspective of the matter changed, would the truth of the explanation also change?

The atomic structure is simplified when taught in Middle School, this is to allow the teacher to introduce other topics without going into more advanced chemistry

Has steps proving a relationship between A and B

Must be correct

Easy to understand

There is not so much as truth as there is interpretation of data

People can have different interpretations of the data which can result in different "truths" however, each one of these interpretations may be grounded in truth but not be the whole picture

The validity of the data is based on the number of variables taken into account. An unknown variable that wasn't taken account for might have a large effect on the data

There is no truth in art as different people can have completely different interpretations of the same piece of artwork

Would artistic/authorial intent be considered truth?

Goes beyond the surface level meaning

Creative and thoughtful

Informs and educates others

Solves a question

While these explanations may not be the truest, they are good explanations for younger students as they still educate and allow them to create a foundation to build on

Aims to answer a question

This truth can be proven incorrect with the introduction of new data, does this rid the original theory of its value?

A good explanation does not need to be true, however, a useful one may need to be

Harry Potter series

JK Rowling has good explanations for certain mechanics in the Wizarding World within the Harry Potter universe. However, none of it is true because it is fiction