Introduction: The Authority of Numbers
Measurement carries an aura of objectivity.
Numbers appear neutral, portable, and decisive. They promise clarity where interpretation seems messy and certainty where judgment feels fragile. In contemporary explanation, measurement is often treated not merely as a tool, but as a guarantor of reality itself.
This post examines what happens when measurement stops supporting explanation and begins replacing meaning.
1. What Measurement Actually Does
Measurement does not discover phenomena. It operationalises them.
To measure something is to decide:
what counts as a unit,
what distinctions matter,
what variation can be ignored.
These decisions are not neutral. They presuppose a prior understanding of what the phenomenon is supposed to be.
Measurement, therefore, depends on meaning before it can quantify anything at all.
2. From Indicator to Identity
A common explanatory slippage occurs when an indicator becomes an identity.
What begins as:
- this variable tracks some aspect of the phenomenonquietly turns into:
this variable is the phenomenon.
At that point, explanation collapses into reporting. To explain is simply to cite the number.
What the phenomenon means — how it is lived, interpreted, or oriented — disappears from view.
3. Why Quantification Feels Final
Quantitative accounts feel conclusive because they resist argument.
You can debate an interpretation, but it is harder to dispute a figure once its legitimacy has been institutionally secured. Measurement thus acquires epistemic authority that exceeds its explanatory role.
Numbers end conversations not because they explain better, but because they explain faster.
4. The Erasure of Context
Meaning-bearing phenomena are inherently contextual. They depend on relations, histories, norms, and expectations.
Measurement strips context in order to stabilise comparison.
This trade-off is sometimes worth making. But when stripped context is treated as explanatory residue rather than loss, meaning is quietly erased.
What remains is a flattened phenomenon that behaves well statistically and poorly ontologically.
5. When Measurement Becomes Ontology
The deepest error occurs when what is measurable is treated as what is real.
At this point, phenomena that resist quantification are reclassified as:
subjective,
secondary,
or explanatorily irrelevant.
This is not a discovery about the world. It is an artefact of the measurement regime.
Conclusion: Recovering Meaning Without Rejecting Measure
The problem is not measurement itself. It is the forgetting of what measurement presupposes.
A relational approach insists that:
Measurement must answer to meaning, not replace it.
Numbers can illuminate relations, but they cannot constitute them.
In the next post, we will examine how explanation fails in a final, subtler way: when descriptions of stability are mistaken for explanations of necessity.
No comments:
Post a Comment