Introduction: What Has Been Failing
Across this series, we have not identified a single mistaken theory or villainous discipline. We have traced a pattern.
Explanation keeps failing not because we lack intelligence, data, or technique, but because explanation is repeatedly asked to do the wrong kind of work.
Again and again, it is pressed into service as a way of ending inquiry rather than orienting it.
1. The Recurrent Temptation
Each failure mode we have examined follows the same underlying temptation:
to go deeper rather than clearer,
to explain everything rather than this,
to let models answer instead of asking,
to let numbers stand in for meaning,
to let stability harden into necessity.
These moves differ in style, but they share a common aim: relief from uncertainty.
Explanation becomes a device for reassurance.
2. Why Closure Feels Like Success
Explanatory closure feels successful because it produces quiet.
Questions subside. Doubts recede. The phenomenon appears contained. This calm is often mistaken for understanding.
But silence is not insight.
When explanation closes inquiry, it does not resolve complexity. It screens it off.
3. Explanation as Orientation
An alternative picture of explanation emerges once closure is refused.
On this view, explanation does not aim to finish the work. It aims to situate it. A good explanation leaves us better oriented:
clearer about what matters,
more precise about what is at stake,
more sensitive to what could vary.
It does not remove the need for judgment. It sharpens it.
4. Keeping Possibility Alive
What explanation must preserve, above all, is possibility.
Not abstract possibility, but situated alternatives — the sense that phenomena are sustained by relations that could, under other conditions, be otherwise.
This is not a denial of constraint. It is a refusal to confuse constraint with destiny.
5. What This Series Has Not Done
This series has deliberately avoided offering a replacement theory.
That is not an omission. It is a commitment.
Any theory offered too soon would simply become another device of closure, another framework ready to answer in advance.
What has been offered instead is a recalibration of explanatory appetite.
Conclusion: Explanation as an Ongoing Responsibility
Explanation fails when it seeks rest.
It succeeds when it accepts responsibility for staying with the phenomenon — attending to its relations, its conditions, and its continued becoming.
Explanation should not settle the world. It should keep us answerable to it.
If this series has done its work, it has not instructed. It has reoriented.
And that, perhaps, is the most explanation should ever promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment