A child asks, “Why did the glass fall?” You say, “Because you bumped the table.” Moments later: “But why did it break?” And then: “Why was it even there?”
In everyday life, this kind of questioning is relentless—and essential. We crave explanations. We want to know why things happen, not just what happened. We want to make sense of the world.
At the heart of many explanations is the idea of causation—the notion that some events bring others about. But explanation and causation are not the same. Sometimes we explain without invoking causes. Sometimes we identify causes that don’t explain anything. And often, what counts as a “good explanation” depends not just on facts, but on context, expectations, and perspective.
This blog post explores the complex relationship between explanation and causation—how they overlap, how they diverge, and why they matter so deeply for science, psychology, and everyday human life.
Explanation: Making Sense of the World
To explain something is to make it intelligible—to show how it fits into a broader pattern, how it came to be, or what role it plays. Explanations answer questions like:
- Why did that happen?
- How does this work?
- What is this for?
Explanations can take many forms:
- Causal (“She caught a cold because she stood in the rain.”)
- Functional (“Birds have wings to fly.”)
- Statistical (“This treatment works for 70% of people.”)
- Teleological (“He ran to catch the bus.”)
- Historical or narrative (“This tradition began during the harvest festival centuries ago.”)
In each case, explanation is not just a list of facts. It’s a framing of relevance—a selection of the right facts to answer the right question in a way that makes sense to a listener or inquirer.
Causation: The Backbone of Why
Causation, by contrast, refers to the relationship between events: when one thing brings about another. Lightning strikes, and a tree catches fire. You drink coffee, and feel more alert. In philosophy and science, causation is often seen as the mechanical engine behind change.
There are many competing theories of causation:
- Regularity theories (Humean): C causes E if C is regularly followed by E.
- Counterfactual theories: C causes E if, had C not occurred, E would not have occurred.
- Interventionist theories: C causes E if manipulating C changes E.
- Mechanistic theories: C causes E if there is a process or mechanism connecting them.
All these theories aim to capture what makes one thing produce another. But causation alone doesn’t always explain what we care about.
The Tension: Not All Causes Explain
Let’s return to the child and the broken glass.
Suppose you say, “The glass broke because gravity pulled it down after it slipped.” That’s true—but is it explanatory? Maybe. But maybe what the child really wants to know is: Why was it placed so close to the edge?
Here’s the point: Causal facts can be insufficient for explanation. An explanation requires selecting the causes that are relevant to the question—and relevance depends on human expectations, norms, and context.
Another example:
- A patient dies after taking a medication.
- The ultimate cause might be a biochemical reaction.
- But a meaningful explanation might involve the doctor’s decision, the warning labels, or the regulatory system.
In other words, causation is objective; explanation is interpretive. Explanation involves narrative, emphasis, and values.
Why This Distinction Matters
1. In Science
Scientific explanation often seeks to uncover causal mechanisms. But science also aims to organize knowledge in ways that illuminate patterns—not just identify chains of cause and effect.
For example:
- Explaining an eclipse involves astronomical causes.
- But explaining why eclipses are predictable involves a model, not just a cause.
Scientific explanation is therefore about structure and understanding, not just event linkage.
2. In Psychology
When we explain human behavior, we rarely stop at biology. We want to know:
- What motivated the person?
- What did they believe or intend?
- What cultural or historical factors influenced them?
Even if every behavior has a neural cause, a good explanation must make sense from the person’s point of view. That’s why psychology uses intentional and narrative explanations, not just physical ones.
3.In Ethics and Responsibility
Causation alone doesn’t establish moral blame. If a machine malfunctions and injures someone, it caused the harm—but we don’t necessarily assign moral responsibility.
Moral explanation often involves:
- Who had control?
- What did they know?
- What should they have done?
This shows how norms and values guide explanatory relevance. Not all causes are treated equally.
Coherence Between Explanation and Causation
Despite their differences, explanation and causation are deeply linked. In many contexts:
- Explaining is identifying the right causes.
- Causal models help structure good explanations.
The best explanations often combine causal accuracy with interpretive relevance. They don’t just trace events—they show why those events matter, how they fit, and what they teach us.
Final Thoughts: The Human Urge to Explain
To be human is to ask “Why?”—not just for curiosity, but for connection, control, and meaning. We explain to make peace with chaos, to navigate life’s puzzles, to repair relationships, to guide decisions.
Causation gives us structure. Explanation gives us sense.
And when the two come together—when we find a cause that also makes meaning—we feel that deep, almost childlike satisfaction: Now I understand.