Introduction: Slowing Explanation Down
Much of the misuse of biology arises not from false claims, but from undifferentiated ones. Terms slide into one another. Distinctions collapse. Biology is asked to do explanatory work it was never meant to do.
This post slows things down by introducing three distinctions that are rarely kept apart:
constraint,
enablement,
constitution.
Holding these apart quietly but decisively changes how biological explanations are read.
1. Constraint: What Cannot Happen
Biological systems impose constraints. They delimit the space of possibility:
humans cannot breathe underwater unaided,
certain perceptual ranges are unavailable,
some forms of coordination are biologically impossible.
Constraint answers a negative question:
What cannot occur, given the kind of system this is?
Constraints do real explanatory work. But they do not specify what does occur.
2. Enablement: What Can Happen
Beyond constraint lies enablement. Biology makes certain forms of action, coordination, and meaning possible:
vocal tracts enable speech,
nervous systems enable learning,
metabolic systems enable sustained activity.
Enablement answers a modal question:
What kinds of phenomena can this system support?
Enablement expands possibility. It does not select outcomes.
3. Constitution: What Is Happening
Constitution concerns what actually is the phenomenon:
the relations that sustain it,
the practices that enact it,
the norms that give it force,
the meanings that make it intelligible.
Constitution answers a present-oriented question:
What relations currently make this phenomenon what it is?
This is where explanation must remain answerable to lived reality.
4. Where the Confusion Enters
The misuse of biology occurs when these distinctions collapse:
constraints are treated as constitutive,
enablements are mistaken for causes,
historical conditions are treated as present explanations.
When this happens, biology appears to explain phenomena that it merely bounds.
5. Why the Collapse Feels Natural
The collapse of these distinctions feels intuitive because:
constraints appear prior and therefore authoritative,
enablements feel generative,
constitution looks contingent and fragile by comparison.
But explanation that bypasses constitution sacrifices intelligibility for reassurance.
Conclusion: Reading Biology Differently
Once constraint, enablement, and constitution are kept distinct, biological claims change meaning:
They no longer close inquiry.
They no longer substitute for relational explanation.
They become conditions of possibility rather than answers.
This does not weaken biology. It restores it to its proper role.
In the next post, we will examine how history — especially evolutionary history — is routinely mistaken for explanation, and why this error is so persuasive.
No comments:
Post a Comment