This paper suggests that our everyday explanation talk exhibits a number of important dimensions of variation, then proposes a functionalist account of explanation to help accommodate them. The functional role of explanations is given in terms of answering why-questions, which in turn is spelled out in terms of the provision of information about non-inferential consequence. Realizers of the explanation role can be found by considering various consequence relations, including (for example) relations of causal and nomic consequence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrie Jenkins (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: