There is a sharp line between describing something and offering an explanation of it”

To what extent do you agree with this claim?

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance”1

-Confucius

Knowledge can often be described as a framework of utilitarian and academic comprehension

of an individual in a subject matter, which can be assessed in their practical, oral or

transcribed proficiency, among others. The passing of knowledge is an important axiom that

is essential to birth further discoveries for the progress of the world. The given statement

draws on this passing on and production of knowledge so as to differentiate between

describing something and offering an explanation of it.

Investigating the sharp line between a description and an explanation is arduous as the two

are often intertwined depending on the depth of understanding held by an individual. Hence

to obtain a distinct clarity between an explanation and a description the terms can be defined.

A description revolves around deductive reasoning and surface narration often created by

sensory perception, while an explanation is an in depth commentary used to aid

understanding, and is often backed with evidence. In certain Areas of Knowledge(AOK) a

description may suffice to aid understanding however while in others an explanation may be

necessary. An AOK such as Natural sciences revolves around logical notions and analytical

discernment, hence making use of inductive reasoning that lead to theories. However in

AOK’s such as Human Sciences which revolves around evidences, deductive reasoning is

often made use to lead an individual towards a conclusion. Therefore exploring the role of

reasoning in each AOK can help explore if there is a need for a description or an

explanation.Defining the terms separately makes the statement true. In the statement the word

1
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/confucius_101037
“it” is unclear and will hence be referred to as the production of knowledge in this essay. This

essay aims to contextualize the AOKs of Human sciences and Natural sciences along with the

cumulative investigation of the different methods of inquiry in order to provide a definitive

conclusion.

The Natural sciences is a practical AOK that makes use of inductive reasoning in the

production of knowledge. The obtainment and assimilation of new shared knowledge is

widely prevalent in Natural Sciences as new scientific theories and principles are frequently

postulated. The understanding of inductive reasoning can help differentiate between a

description and an explanation. Inductive reasoning means to build on prior knowledge to

reach a justified conclusion. This is often seen in Natural sciences, where it can be observed

that present knowledge can lead to another often resulting in knowledge production. Most

scientific laws often answer the question of ‘how?’ rather than ‘why?’ 2 hence performing the

function of description rather than an explanation.

An example of this will be the postulation of Newton’s laws of gravity in physics. These

widely proclaimed laws, are just mere observations of the world. For elucidation Newtons

first law dictates “An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless

acted upon by an external force 3”. This law dictates a mere description of what was

observed. However the reason behind this law is not ‘explained’. Upon further research the

reason is broken down to be more observational descriptions. It can hence be said that there

are certain phenomenon which cannot be explained and is hence merely described.

However there are instances in the Natural Sciences where an explanatory system is

necessary in order to convince the congregation of the reason behind the knowledge
2
http://www.psu.ru/files/docs/personalnye-stranitsy-prepodavatelej/tutunnikov/
Modern__Philosophy_and_Methodology_of_Science_Lecture_2.pdf
3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html
produced. For example, the proclaimed theory of evolution by Charles Darwin can be

considered. This theory played a pivotal role in transmogrifying the subject of biology and

represents a paradigm shift in understanding of the development of organisms. Although the

theory of evolution was established based on a wide range of organisms, it merely represents

a description of the development of organisms and fails to explain the real scientific reason

backed by evidence and research. This theory can be opposed with the belief that “correlation

does not result in causation”4 since the ‘evidences’ purely portray a correlation. However the

gene theory established by Gregor Mendel is based more on deductive reasoning and

explains the basis behind the theory of evolution, providing a potent explanation for the birth

of organisms. Hence the consideration of this example determines that there is a sharp line

between providing a description and offering an explanation, particularly in the AOK of

Natural Sciences, since the explanation of theory of evolution by Gregor Mendel provides a

formidable scientific background. The provision of an explanation to aid understanding

helped create understanding of the mere descriptions made by Charles Darwin 5. Hence the

Natural sciences is a robust exemplar that depicts the ‘sharp line’ that exists between

description and an explanation.

Regardless it is still clear that both descriptions and explanations serve to quench the

questions that arise from human exploration. The maximum limits to which reason is

provided in the quest for knowledge is referred to as an explanation while the brief

observations made during the course of stringing together an explanation could be referred to

4
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/02/12/many-people-still-reject-charles-
darwins-theory-of-evolution
5
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-
as-religious-faith/417357/
as a description. Therefore the need for an explanation or a description is made clear given

examples from the Natural sciences as above.

Events can also be explored in terms of the Human Sciences, which follow a more deductive

approach, this is often termed as the “top down” approach where evidence and supporting

facts play a crucial role in producing knowledge. This AOK often refers to production of

shared knowledge where the congregation often makes use of prior knowledge to establish

links with new ideas that are presented, this is otherwise known as deductive reasoning. The

discipline of psychology is used to analyze and predict human behavior, this is done through

experimentation which make use of deductive reasoning in the production of knowledge,

understanding of behavior. In which a description is fundamentally an observation of human

behavior while the reason behind an individual’s actions would be considered an explanation.

Examples of these can be seen in various psychological experiments where reliable

knowledge is produced through trials in experiments.

A precedent of a psychological experiment conducted by Roediger and McDermont is the

False Memory experiment. This experiment gave birth to the theory of reconstructive

memory which states that ”Memory is an active process of recreation of past events as

opposed to passive processes of memory retrieval. Over time information from the event as

well as post event information get integrated to the extent that they cannot be differentiated.”
6
This theory has been corroborated by numerous other experiments such as one conducted by

Loftus and Palmer. Thus the affirmation by a populous of descriptions that conform to a

single theory validate the theory and hence make the knowledge produced reliable. The

6
POPOV, ALEXEY. IB PSYCHOLOGY ONLINE COURSE BOOK: Oxford IB Diploma Programme.
OXFORD University Press, 2017.
knowledge produced in this instance will be the reconstructive theory formed, which will be

deemed as the explanation that explicates the described observations.

In comparison to the Natural sciences the difference in approach to a conclusion is definitely

seen. While a pool of variable data is processed and analyzed in the formation of knowledge

in the Human sciences, prior knowledge built upon using inductive reasoning is involved in

knowledge production in the area of Natural sciences. Another point to note would be that,

the only role played by the scientific method in the Natural sciences is to validate the

knowledge produced. While the process to obtain knowledge in the area of psychology is

considerably similar the outcome of the method is different. It can be noted that the

conclusion of the method used by the Human sciences may not be entirely reliable. This

apperception can be used to compare the difference in reliability of a description and an

explanation, for which many examples lie in the AOK of Human Sciences as well.

In the AOK of Human Sciences, especially in the field of psychology there are numerous

sources of knowledge, and the analyst must at a point decide which of the data lie outside of

the perimeter of investigation. A misjudgment in the errors can lead to a large margin of error

in the investigation. This leads to the replication crisis where results of studies and

experiments are difficult to replicate. This is often a characteristic of deductive reasoning and

a clear example of this will be a psychological study by Baumeister that studied how self-

control acts as a muscle and can be exhausted after a certain period of time. This study led to

the theory of Ego depletion. However another researcher, Evan Carter, replicated

Baumeister’s experiment and realized that contrary evidence of Baumeister’s studies were
not included. This was explained to be a publication bias and it was concluded that there was

no firm evidence to back the ego depletion theory.7

Knowing that certain observations of the experiment were undisclosed means that a few

descriptions were ignored before an explanation was given. Whilst these descriptions may

have been an important part of the explanation of anomalies in the theory. At this stage an

intertwining of descriptions and explanations is evident due to an error being present, the

sharp line between the two becomes unclear.

In conclusion the method of knowledge production affects the extent of the sharp line

between descriptions and explanations. The reasoning used in the knowledge production as

well as the methodology is used to satisfy the individual’s curiosity. The curiosity or the

limits of reason will be limited to human understanding and possibly technology of the time.

However in certain AOKs it becomes clear that a disparity in the clarity of knowledge

production is also limited by the lack of sufficient descriptions, this in foresight affects the

explanations of the observations. The difference between a description and an explanation

becomes affected by the bias of the individual who is ‘explaining’ or ‘describing’ knowledge

production. Thus this can question how meaningful knowledge cannot be produced through

only certain descriptions but through sufficient explanations which can be formed by plentiful

unbiased descriptions, which hence allows us to draw a fine line between a description and an

explanation.

7
https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpower-the-wrong-way-for-30-
years