Adia Sisson

Do Good Explanations Have to be True?

Untruths are essential to the understanding of knowledge. Because knowledge can be difficult to grasp, explanations are used to increase comprehensibility by describing knowledge through literal, figurative, or analogous descriptions. To be understandable, explanations must make inherent sense, meaning one can easily accept the explanation without question or confusion. I believe that truth is absolute unless referring to personal or cultural knowledge, such as religion, in which there are commonalities without congruency. Good explanations may be literal or nonliteral but must be easily accepted and improve one's understanding, perhaps requiring knowledge from a spectrum of truth.

To what extent must knowledge be true for its explanation to be good? Good explanations describe a spectrum of truth.

In order for an explanation to be good, it must be intuitable and make inherent sense. In the Natural Sciences, there are many intuitable explanations of theories which are now outdated and proven wrong; however, the modern explanations aren’t as easily understood, despite referring to current, truer knowledge. For example, in Physics, Aristotle claimed that all objects in motion will inevitably come to rest. This explanation is simple, easily understood, and makes sense due to the shared knowledge from the sense perception that moving objects cease their motion after a period of time. Today’s understanding of the natural phenomenon, as described by Newton, occurs due to the presence of an unbalanced force, commonly from a physical collision, friction, or gravity (Britannica). Galileo was the first to conceptualize inertia, causing objects to continue moving or resting unless a force actively changed its velocity (Galileo and Inertia). Because many of these forces are imperceptible by the senses, the modern explanation doesn’t make sense to the average person, making it worse than the previous explanation despite being truer. But, in addition to being intuitable, good explanations must improve one’s understanding, so the old explanation isn’t good because it teaches incorrect knowledge; leading to the question, can either explanation be defined as good?

In the case of the atomic model in Chemistry, there have been many explanations following the historical development of the discipline. Three significant models are J.J. Thompson’s Plum Pudding, Bohr-Rutherford’s nuclear-planetary model, and the modern understanding of electron shells. The development of each model varies. Plum Pudding establishes basic knowledge of the existence of atoms and charges, Bohr-Rutherford explains electron orbit around a central nucleus, and the current model classifies the shapes, sizes, and locations of cascading shells. Different models are suited to different purposes; simplistic explanations like the Plum Pudding model are good starting points but ineffective for deep understanding, whereas the current model is only understandable following simpler descriptions. Good explanations walk the line between high degrees of truth and intuitability, making midlevel explanations like Bohr-Rutherford’s the best due to understandability and educational capacity.

I believe that in religion, the goodness of explanations is a spectrum depending on the level of truth required. The Bahá’í Faith teaches progressive revelation, believing God sent prophets like Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, and Buddha with pieces of his message specific to their times and places. Throughout history, Jesus, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh were sent to update this knowledge for evolving cultures. As a Bahá’í, I believe that each religion explains the truth of its time, so religions are best when in their intended era but aren’t as good or true in others. Because good explanations must be intuitable, make sense, and improve one’s understanding, the best explanations may describe knowledge not fully true or untrue.

To what extent is fiction necessary to understand truth? Metaphors, fictitious explanations of true knowledge, are effective teaching tools but only when understood to be unliteral.

Knowledge in Religious Knowledge Systems is often passed through fables, told orally or shown by the arts. Originally, these stories were understood to be lessons rather than historical accounts, and because fictional narratives don’t attack prior beliefs, people accept them more easily than facts. In order for these explanations to deliver their knowledge, their ideas must be referenced rather than literal plot points, understanding that the lesson is true, but explanation is metaphorical. The myth of Narcissus shows this. Conan’s Greek version describes a man’s suicide after spurn by Narcissus. As punishment for the pain he caused, the gods made Narcissus fall in love with his reflection in the river. As he kissed his image, it rippled and disappeared(The Myth of Narcissus). Distraught from never reaching his love, some versions say he died on the banks of the river, others saying he drowned seeking a kiss. When understood as a metaphor for romantic manipulation and vanity, the fable is a good explanation. However, when the plot is taken literally, the story twists, warning of the dangers of beauty, homosexuality, and drowning.

According to The Book of Genesis, the universe was created in six days. Each day, God created one thing: light, Earth, vegetation, stars, animals, and humans. The truth of this explanation is debated, but if it’s metaphorical, not literal, the explanation coheres to the scientific origin theories like the Big Bang. If days represent periods of time, Genesis explains universal expansion, astronomical entities, and evolution in an easy-to-understand analogy which set the Western unit of time: the seven-day week. While not literal, the knowledge of this explanation is true. Following scientific advances, theological modernism arose in the 1800s, emphasizing science and reason, “[revising] traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate” new scientific knowledge(Melton). In response, Protestants who believed biblical knowledge was incompatible with science created Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists follow a literal understanding of the Bible that does not accept scientific views. For example, creationism, which claims that humans were created in their current state rather than evolving over time. This theory was put in the spotlight in the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, in which a teacher was tried for “[teaching] any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible” (Monkey Trial Begins). If taken literally, Genesis challenges scientific knowledge and complicates one’s understanding of truth, but if understood as a figurative analogy, Genesis simply describes complex ideas in a format consistent with evidence from many AOKs. However, how can one be sure of the intentions of an explanation? Can one know if an explanation is metaphorical or literal? As time grows farther from the explanation’s creation, uncertainty of intention grows, and storytelling becomes a game of telephone.

To what extent can multiple meanings affect an explanation’s goodness? With each interpretation, an explanation’s knowledge changes.

Where does meaning come from: author, reader, or storyteller? An author gives the story its original meaning, but as the story is read and retold, it mutates. If the reader gives meaning, then the story holds any knowledge, but meaning is the author’s, a story only explains one set of knowledge. In the game Telephone, a phrase passes person-to-person through a group. Each person hears the phrase and passes it on, but as people misunderstand, the phrase mutates so by the end, it bears little resemblance to the first person’s message. Each time a story is retold, the storyteller unpacks the knowledge and retells it as an author, modifying the explanation each telling, distancing the listener from the original version, sometimes losing the original knowledge along the way.

The story of Onan in Genesis shows this. It tells of a widow forced to marry her husband’s brother by the law of Yibum to ensure she was cared for and provided with children and heirs to her first husband’s estate(Abramowitz). When Onan refused to provide offspring, withdrawing instead, God slew him for his sin. While this story originally illustrated the evil of refusing a woman heirs, Christian interpretations use the fable as a warning against masturbation and sex for pleasure. This interpretation birthed the term onanism, meaning masturbation or withdrawal rather than misuse of Yibum. While this story led to two sets of knowledge, if meaning comes from the reader, both sets are true, and the explanation is good for multiple knowledge sets. But, if the author gives meaning, sharing the knowledge perverted the intended meaning, so the explanation doesn’t improve one’s understanding.

However, I believe that religion, independent of author/reader interpretation, explains a code of conduct, not strict laws, meaning holy writings should be interpreted for each situation. For instance, I believe Islam and Bahá’í ban intoxication, not alcohol; therefore, one sip complies with the knowledge, ‘don’t get drunk’, while disobeying the explanation, ‘don’t drink’. While not I alone believe this, many believe religion is literal and exact. The satirical song, The Loophole, by comedic duo Garfunkel & Oates depicts a character who obeys the biblical law prohibiting premarital coitus to the letter but contradicts its meaning by practicing non-vaginal premarital intercourse. Though vulgar, the song analyzes this behavior, showing the effect of cherry-picking laws and mining for ambiguities(Garfunkel&Oates). The character describes that she does “whatever people tell [her], that the Bible tells [her],” showing she follows other’s beliefs rather than her own interpretation of the Bible(Garfunkel&Oates). She then states she follows the Bible “except for the parts [she chooses] to ignore because they're unrealistic and inconvenient,” pointing out that many strict Christians ignore the ban on “shellfish, polyester, and divorce”(Garfunkel&Oates). By following secondhand teachings, exploiting ambiguities, and obeying cherry-picked laws, the interpretation deviates greatly from the message, perhaps disqualifying the action from biblical compliance.

Good explanations make sense while educating about the topic, explaining knowledge between true and untrue. Because humans are narrative driven, they accept fictional stories easier than facts, making metaphors good explanations. While ambiguity in meaning’s source makes the connection between goodness and truth debatable, overall, good explanations don’t have to be true.