Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Do good explanations have to be true - Coggle Diagram
Do good explanations have to be true
Good explanations in different AOKs
Human Sciences
Supported by evidence
A reasonable conclusion based on the interpretation fo said evidence
Aims to answer a question
Natural Sciences
Supported by evidence
Draws a reasonable conclusion based on the interpretation of said evidence
Informs and educates others
No bias and is solely focused on empirical data
Arts
Refers back to the art in order to structure a reasoning
Goes beyond the surface level meaning
Creative and thoughtful
Maths
Has steps proving a relationship between A and B
Must be correct
Easy to understand
Informs and educates others
Solves a question
Initial Response and Ideas
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
The truthfulness of an explanation is not determined by its quality
A good explanation does not need to be true, however, a useful one may need to be
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?
Are "untrue" explanations only untrue due to perspective? If one's perspective of the matter changed, would the truth of the explanation also change?
Role of Truth in Different AOKs
Natural Sciences
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
Human Sciences
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
This truth can be proven incorrect with the introduction of new data, does this rid the original theory of its value?
Arts
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?
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
Real-world Examples that Relate
Atomic Structure in Chemistry
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
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
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
Specific Example: J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series as an allegory for war
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