0034

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

what extent do you agree with this claim?

Word Count: 1526

In most cases, a description seeks to provide understanding at a base level, while an

explanation seeks to provide a complex and more in-depth understanding. While there are times

where description and explanation are exclusive of each other, there are many cases where, due

to the nature of what is being described, a description also yields an explanation. For the purpose

of this essay, a sharp line is defined as a clear distinction between two things that may have

some, but little, similarity. There is a sharp line between a description and an explanation to a

certain extent, but the extent changes across History and the Natural Sciences, due to the

language used and the nature of that which is being described or explained.

For the purpose of this essay, a description in History is defined as an exploration of

objective facts, and an explanation is the subjective interpretation of those facts and the effects

they had on people, culture, economics, or other historical factors at the time or history as a

whole. In A History of Modern Russia, the language that Robert Service uses in his discussion of

the Bolshevik party’s consolidation of power after the October Revolution makes it possible for a

description and an explanation to take place at the same time. Service says that “Plans were laid

to establish a central party school, whose students would supplement the handful of thousands of

activists who had belonged to the communist party before the February Revolution of

1917”(Service 92). Service describes the Bolshevik’s tactics of indoctrination in this sentence

through the objective fact that plans for central party schools were laid out. However, the
statement that the students offset the loss of activists is a subjective interpretation made by

Service in his analysis of Bolshevik strategies. Because of the language that Service uses, he

includes both fact and interpretation, providing a description of one of the Bolshevik power

consolidation techniques as well as an explanation of said technique. Service’s language is not

the only aspect that allows for both description and explanation to occur simultaneously. The

Bolshevik party’s rise is a process that extends over time and is of multiple smaller events. The

nature of a process, with its many intricate workings, provides the opportunity for a description

and explanation to be combined because the description of those smaller events creates an

explanation of the larger events as well. In Service’s discussion of the New Economic Policy, he

says that “In [Lenin’s] opinion, the peasantry had to be placated by the replacement of grain

requisitioning with a tax in kind”(Service 124). Lenin had to reclaim support from the peasantry,

and he did that with this new tax. The replacement tax is described as an action taken by Lenin

with the purpose of regaining support. This description, due to the nature of this action and its

effect being part of the description of a larger process, yields an explanation of the effect the

action had on the peasantry of Russia. A process is more likely to provide both an explanation

and a description because it is a larger historical event comprised of smaller historical events.

Contrary to the overlap between description and explanation exhibited by Service, there

are also some cases in which a procedure is being described but the language used for the

description does not also constitute an explanation. On the Throughline podcast “How the CIA

Overthrew Iran’s Democracy in 4 Days”, the historians describing the US’s actions do not use a

language that also provides an explanation in their description. In their description of events, one

of the historians, Arablouei, says that “Roosevelt convinced the shah that Mossadegh was a

threat. And so the shah agreed to the coup”(How the CIA Overthrew). In these statements, we
can see a clear description of the United States’ actions; however, there is no explanation being

put forth. Arablouei does not mention what effect this action had on any historical factors, only

that it was a tactic by the United States in its operation.

Although the United States overthrowing the Iranian government is a process like the

Bolshevik rise to power, the language used by historians when describing the coup was not

sufficient in providing an explanation. This contradiction begs the question, what effect does

language have on the distinction between description and explanation? As we can see from these

two examples, language is a defining factor in the separation between explanation and

description. Both of the examples were descriptions of a process, and therefore have the same

qualities that can produce both description and explanation at the same time. However, the

language used by the historians discussing these procedures was different. Robert Service uses a

language that was more general and focused on a larger picture; this allows for the inclusion of

details about the effects that Bolshevik actions had on historical factors of the time. Arablouei

uses a more specific language, catered to the single events that he was talking about and not the

large-scale effects of the event. The language used is crucial to the production of both description

and explanation of a historical event.

Just like there is a specific definition for description and explanation in History, the two

concepts have specific definitions within the Natural Sciences as well. In the Natural Sciences a

description details the physical characteristics of an object or experiment, or it defines a law or

theory. An explanation details the functions, workings, or purpose of an object or procedure.

There is less of an overlap between description and explanation in the Natural Sciences, though.

In the article “The Tyranny of Simple Explanations,” Philip Ball explores the theory Occam’s

Razor. Ball says that the original definition of Occam’s Razor is: “It is futile to do with more
what can be done with fewer”(Ball). This discussion of Occam’s Razor provides a description,

but it does not yield an explanation as well. Ball defines the theory, which constitutes a

description, but he does not explain Occam’s Razor. In this statement, Ball makes no mention of

the theory's application or purpose, meaning that there is no explanation being provided. In this

scenario, the reason for the lack of explanation is the language that is used. Due to the Natural

Sciences placing more emphasis on the precise reporting of objective fact, the language that is

used does not typically produce and explanation alongside a description.

This leads us to ask the question, what effect do subjectivity and objectivity have on

description and explanation? The Natural Sciences focus mainly on objective fact, but History

focuses on the subjective interpretation of historical facts. The difference in emphasis contributes

to the change in the definition of description and explanation across the two areas of knowledge,

hence changing the similarities between the two concepts. The nature of History’s subjective

interpretation leads historians to make broader claims about events as well as focus on the

smaller events that contribute to those larger historical events. The language that is required to

discuss the complexity of these larger historical events allows for a description and explanation

to be provided. The Natural Sciences, on the other hand, emphasize the objective reporting of

observed facts. This requires a more concise definition and language that separates description

and explanation more than in History.

Even though there is more distinction between description and explanation, the two

concepts are not completely separate. Pearson Baccalaureate’s Higher Level Biology defines the

Polymerase Chain Reaction as “a laboratory technique using a machine called a thermocycler

that takes a very small quantity of DNA and copies all the nucleic acids in it to make millions of

copies of the DNA”(Pearson Baccalaureate 158). This definition of PCR contains aspects of both
a description and an explanation. The description offers the physical characteristics of the

process as being a laboratory technique that uses a thermocycler, as well as saying that it’s

function is the replication of small quantities of DNA. The language used allows for there to be

both a description and an explanation of PCR occurring simultaneously. While the concise

language used in the book and PCR being a process, giving it the same inherent qualities that

allow for a description and explanation, contribute to the overlapping aspects of description and

explanation, the main reason this is possible is the definitions of description and explanation. For

instance, if you apply the definition of description and explanation that is used in History, then

there would not be an explanation provided because there is no interpretation of PCR and its

significance stated in the description.

There is not much of a sharp line between describing something and providing and

explanation of it, but there is some extent of a line between the two. The amount of distinction

between description and explanation is variable across areas of knowledge due to a change in the

definition of these two concepts in different areas of knowledge, and there is a change in the

overlapping of description and explanation caused by the language that is used to describe an

event, object, or process.

 Works Cited

Ball, Philip. “The Tyranny of Simple Explanations.” The Atlantic, August 11, 2016,

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/?

utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits. September 30,

2019.

“How the CIA Overthrew Iran’s Democracy in 4 Days.” Throughline from NPR, 7 February

2019, https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=690363402.

Pearson Baccalaureate. Higher Level Biology. Pearson Education Limited, 2014.

Service, Robert. A History of Modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin. 3rd ed.,

Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2005.