Introduction: Hidden Rules of Judgment
By now, it should be clear that explanations often mislead not because they are false, but because we respond to them with unconscious criteria. Certain explanations feel convincing precisely because they align with habits of judgment we rarely articulate.
This post exposes these hidden criteria and examines how they shape the explanatory landscape.
1. Authority and Familiarity
Explanations gain weight when they come from trusted sources, disciplines, or familiar frameworks. Authority is persuasive:
expert testimony carries epistemic force,
formal models or technical language feel rigorous,
widely accepted metaphors resonate.
Familiarity reassures. Repetition breeds trust. But neither guarantees that the explanation actually engages the phenomenon relationally.
2. Simplicity and Elegance
We are drawn to explanations that are tidy and coherent. Simplicity feels correct:
fewer steps, fewer variables, fewer contingencies.
elegant stories that unify disparate phenomena.
Yet simplicity can mask abstraction and omission. Elegance seduces us into believing that complexity has been tamed when it has only been suppressed.
3. Depth and Reach
As we saw earlier, tracing causes backward gives the impression of depth. Explaining many phenomena with a single principle gives the impression of reach.
These qualities feel convincing because they suggest completeness. They make us think we are seeing the underlying reality rather than a selected slice of it.
Depth and reach are therefore seductive but can mislead if we mistake them for relational intelligibility.
4. Causal Fluency
Explanations that present a smooth chain of causation feel intuitive:
the steps connect effortlessly,
the logic flows,
the narrative seems natural.
This fluency gives a sense of inevitability. Yet what feels smooth is not necessarily what is intelligible or meaningfully sustained in the present.
5. Summary of Hidden Criteria
Together, these criteria form an invisible evaluative lens:
Authority and familiarity
Simplicity and elegance
Depth and reach
Causal fluency
They guide our judgments quietly, steering us toward explanations that feel right even when they fail relationally.
6. Preparing for Re-entry
Recognising these hidden standards is essential. Once we see them, we can ask:
Does this explanation orient me to the phenomenon?
Does it allow re-entry, or does it stop inquiry?
Does it respect the relational structure of what I am trying to understand?
In the next post, we will examine re-entry in practice, showing examples of explanations that preserve openness and maintain alignment with the phenomenon rather than our habitual expectations.
No comments:
Post a Comment