Introduction: From Concept to Application
Understanding the hidden criteria that make explanations feel convincing is important, but the real test comes in practice. How do we maintain explanations that are open, responsive, and oriented rather than closed?
This post offers examples of re-entry in practice, showing how explanations can preserve contact with the phenomenon and invite ongoing inquiry.
1. Attending to Relations, Not Objects
Consider a social phenomenon like cooperation. A shallow explanation might cite an internal trait or a fixed rule and stop there.
A re-entry-oriented explanation, in contrast, examines:
how individuals interact in context,
the norms and expectations that sustain cooperation,
contingencies and variations that allow the pattern to persist or change.
It emphasises relations, not objects. The phenomenon remains answerable to its context rather than being reduced to a single causal element.
2. Allowing Anomalies to Speak
Explanations often ignore anomalies to maintain closure. Re-entry in practice requires treating anomalies as signals, not noise.
Example: A model predicts a behavioural pattern, but some instances deviate. Instead of dismissing these, we ask:
Why do these deviations occur?
What conditions make the pattern fail?
How do these exceptions inform the phenomenon itself?
This keeps understanding alive and prevents the explanation from hardening into inevitability.
3. Iterative Engagement
Re-entry is inherently iterative. An explanation is tested, adjusted, and retested against the phenomenon.
Example: In a study of ecosystem dynamics, initial causal chains may be proposed. Continuous observation, measurement, and contextual analysis refine understanding. The explanation is not a final verdict but a provisional guide.
Iteration ensures that the explanation remains answerable, adapting as new relations emerge.
4. Reflexivity in Explanation
Re-entry also demands reflexivity. The explanatory stance itself is scrutinized:
Are assumptions influencing what is observed?
Are familiar models or narratives shaping perception?
Are we privileging authority or fluency over intelligibility?
Acknowledging the observer’s role maintains openness and guards against over-closure.
5. Preserving Meaning While Using Measures
Even when measurement, models, or formal tools are used, re-entry ensures they remain in service of understanding, not substitutes for it.
Numbers, models, and simulations illuminate relational structures. They are provisional scaffolds, always answerable to the phenomenon rather than treated as definitive explanations.
Conclusion: Explanation as an Ongoing Conversation
Re-entry in practice transforms explanation from a verdict into a conversation. The phenomenon continues to have a voice. Questions remain live. Understanding is provisional, relational, and responsive.
In the next post, we will draw together the conceptual lessons of this series in A New Standard for Explanation, offering a synthesis without closing the door to further inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment