Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.

I suspect not: biological explanations for human action tend to focus on women.

Such explanations tend to emphasize the possession of knowledge for its own sake.

Biological explanations tend to focus on gender differences in areas such as spatial skills.

Nomothetic explanations tend to be more general with scientists trying to identify a few causal factors that impact a wide class of conditions or events.

Theoretical explanations in the sciences tend to be of an essentially hypothetical nature.

Yet the explanations also tend to be increasingly complicated.

"Long-winded explanations after longer rides tend to be wearing on the throat."

As reported by such later writers as Aristotle, their explanations tended to center on the material source of things.

Distinctions that require explanations tend to get lost in public debate, and the controversy over cloning is a perfect example.