Based on the information contained in that part of "A" which is given, it will yield a specifc set of expectations for any proposed element of "A" (known or unknown). If the specific element happens to be a member of that part which is given the results will be 100% consistent with what was given. If the specific element is not a member of what is given it will either fit the expectations given or it will yield an alteration in the set of further expectations: i.e., it smoothly becomes a member of the given elements of "A".

I would agree that expectations of the hearer or explainee (i.e., the person who hears and understands the explanation) is one of the potential properties that one can consder as a property of a good explanation. However, as I asked in my last question, how do you pinpoint in your model that it is an explanation that you are modeling and not some other attribute of an explanation that is shared by other intentional acts? In other words:

Question 11: How do you justify that you are modeling the general concept of an explanation and not some other intentional act that also requires 'expectation' of the hearer? For example, giving yourself an excuse to be rude is not necessarily an explanation on why you were rude to someone, yet you might meet a level of expectation on the part of the hearer (i.e., yourself) in being rude is okay.

• Sometimes I wonder if you read what I write! - doctordick - December 15, 2004 - 18:29 UTC