Introduction: Bringing the Lessons Together
After examining why explanations feel convincing, the hidden criteria that guide us, and the practice of re-entry, it is time to synthesise. The goal is not to impose a new dogma or definitive method, but to articulate a standard that preserves openness and relational intelligibility.
1. Explanation as Orientation
The central principle is that explanation should orient rather than close. An explanation that satisfies the new standard:
clarifies relevant relations,
highlights contingencies and dependencies,
invites re-engagement with the phenomenon,
makes explicit its assumptions and limits.
Orientation ensures that understanding remains alive, provisional, and context-sensitive.
2. Depth in Service of Intelligibility
Causal depth is valuable only insofar as it enhances understanding in the present.
The standard insists:
Depth must illuminate, not merely narrate.
Reach and scope should serve relational insight, not impress with completeness.
The chain of causes should remain answerable to the phenomenon.
Depth becomes a tool for orientation, not a substitute for it.
3. Re-entry as Criterion
A good explanation is always open to re-entry:
anomalies, exceptions, and variation are signals, not errors to be ignored,
new observations can refine or challenge the account,
measures, models, and formal tools remain provisional, not final authorities.
Re-entry guarantees that explanation is an ongoing conversation rather than a verdict.
4. Transparency and Reflexivity
The standard demands transparency about assumptions and reflexivity about the observer’s role:
What is taken for granted?
How do familiar narratives or authority shape the account?
What aspects of the phenomenon are being bracketed, and why?
These practices prevent over-closure and maintain connection with the phenomenon.
5. Integrating Criteria Without Closure
The new standard is not a checklist or formula. It is a habit of attention:
orient to the phenomenon,
use depth and tools wisely,
preserve re-entry,
be transparent and reflexive.
It replaces habitual conviction with disciplined responsiveness.
Conclusion: Explanation Without End
By adopting this standard, we cultivate explanations that are robust without being rigid, insightful without being final. Understanding becomes a continuing engagement, not a concluded story.
Good explanation is not a resting place — it is a stance of attentive orientation.
With this, the series on What Counts as an Explanation? completes its conceptual arc, equipping readers to engage with explanations critically, relationally, and responsibly, ready for the next stages of inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment