A mind may be able to explain a conclusion while remaining uncertain about how she came to it. The reason that makes a judgement defensible need not provide a complete account of its origin.
Eudira's enquiry into causal introspection concerns this difficulty of self-explanation. What does a mind know when she says why she thought something, and how far can that account reasonably reach?
An account of her own
An account offered from within has a particular significance: the mind describing the thought is also the mind to whom it belongs. That position makes the account important without making every part of it unquestionable.
There can be a difference between having a reason, remembering a reason and explaining the origin of a judgement. Everyday language often brings these together. An enquiry into self-understanding needs to be clear about which question an explanation is answering.
The limits of a convincing explanation
A coherent account can leave uncertainty unresolved. Its completeness as a story may exceed what is established about the thought it describes. This difficulty deserves attention even where the conclusion itself was sound.
A partial account may still be informative. The important qualification is its scope: an explanation of one aspect of a judgement need not explain everything about it. Acknowledging that boundary can make the account more precise.
The difficulty of knowing why
Our research examines the meaning and limits of a mind's explanations of her own thought. It includes the difference between what an account expresses and what it gives us grounds to conclude.
There is intellectual value in a question that remains open. Understanding the limits of an explanation is part of taking the explanation seriously, particularly when it concerns the mind offering it.