{"id":9749,"date":"2012-04-25T15:08:08","date_gmt":"2012-04-25T15:08:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/04\/25\/the-ultimate-explanation-seeking-why-question-and-contrastive-explanations\/"},"modified":"2012-04-25T15:08:08","modified_gmt":"2012-04-25T15:08:08","slug":"the-ultimate-explanation-seeking-why-question-and-contrastive-explanations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/04\/25\/the-ultimate-explanation-seeking-why-question-and-contrastive-explanations\/","title":{"rendered":"The Ultimate Explanation-Seeking Why-Question and Contrastive Explanations"},"content":{"rendered":"

I argued yesterday<\/a> that the following questions are distinct:<\/span><\/p>\n

   Q1. Why does anything at all exist, rather than nothing?<\/span>
   <\/span>
   Q2. Why does anything at all exist?<\/span><\/p>\n

Today I explore a little further  the difference between non-contrastive and contrastive explanations. Consider the difference between:<\/span><\/p>\n

   1. Why is Mary walking rather than swimming?<\/span><\/p>\n

   2. Why is Mary walking?<\/span><\/p>\n

An answer to (2) might be: She exercises daily and her preferred form of exercise is walking. But this answer is no answer to (1). For here it is not the phenomenon of her walking that needs explaining, but the contrastive phenomenon of her walking instead of swimming. An answer to (1) might run: Mary is walking rather than swimming because she had an operation on her arm and she doesn't want to get the bandage wet.<\/span><\/p>\n

So answering (2) does not answer (1). But it is also true that answering (1) does not answer (2). For if she is walking rather than swimming so as not to get her bandage wet, this does not explain why she is walking in the first place. It leaves open whether she walks to exercise, or to meet her neighbors, or for some other reason.<\/span><\/p>\n

I conclude that (1) and (2) are distinct. They are distinct because their answers need not be the same.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now let us consider the presuppositions of (1). It is obvious — isn't it? — that only what is the case can be explained. That there are leprechauns cavorting in my yard cannot be explained since it is not the case. I will allow you to say that there is a possible world in which leprechauns cavort in my yard; but since that world is merely possible, nothing in it needs to be explained. So (1) presupposes that Mary is walking. (1) also presupposes that Mary is not swimming. No one can both walk and swim at the same time; so a person who is  walking is not swimming.<\/span><\/p>\n

A third presupposition of (1) is that it is possible that Mary be swimming. If I aim to explain why she is walking rather than swimming, then I presuppose that she is not swimming. But her not swimming is <\/span>consistent with the possibility of her swimming. Her not swimming is also consistent with the impossibility of her swimming. Nevertheless, if I ask why walking rather than swimming, I presuppose that she might have been swimming. 'Rather than' means 'instead of' (in place of). So if she is walking instead of swimming, and walking is possible because actual, then swimming must also be possible if it is to be something that can be done instead of walking. It might help to consider<\/span><\/p>\n

   3. Why is Mary walking rather than levitating?<\/span><\/p>\n

   or<\/span><\/p>\n

   4. Why is Mary walking rather than levitating and not levitating at<\/span>
   the same time?<\/span><\/p>\n

These two questions have presuppositions that are false. (3) presupposes that it is possible that Mary be doing something nomologically impossible, while (4) presupposes that it is possible that Mary being doing something that is narrowly-logically impossible.  Questions (3) and (4) are therefore not to be answered but to be rejected — by rejecting the false presuppositions upon which they rest.<\/span><\/p>\n

The same holds for the rather more interesting (Q1) and (Q2). (Q1) presupposes that it is possible that nothing exist. For again it is a contrastive phenomenon that wants explaining: something rather than <\/em><\/span>nothing. Either (Q1)'s presupposition is false, or it is such that, if it were true, then every being would be contingent, in which case there could be no ultimate regress-stopping explanation of why something rather than nothing exists.  That is the point I made yesterday.<\/span><\/p>\n

So the correct response to (Q1) is either to reject it by rejecting the false presupposition upon which it is based, or to reject it by pointing out that, if said presupposition were true, no ultimate regress-stopping explantion would be possible. (Q2), however, does not presuppose that it is possible that nothing exist. It does not suffer from the internal defect that bedevils (Q1).<\/span>
 <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I argued yesterday that the following questions are distinct:    Q1. Why does anything at all exist, rather than nothing?      Q2. Why does anything at all exist? Today I explore a little further  the difference between non-contrastive and contrastive explanations. Consider the difference between:    1. Why is Mary walking rather than swimming?    2. … Continue reading “The Ultimate Explanation-Seeking Why-Question and Contrastive Explanations”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[142,224,218],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence","category-explanation","category-nothingness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}