Relational ontology asserts that systems are structured potential, that instantiation is a perspectival cut, and that meaning emerges through construal. Conceptually, the framework is elegant. But elegance alone is not enough. The true test lies in empirical stakes: can the model distinguish itself from rival accounts? Can it withstand observation, measurement, and practical scrutiny?
This is the fourth pressure point: empirical friction. It asks not what the model explains in theory, but what it predicts, what it risks, and where it might fail when confronted with real-world phenomena.
1. The Challenge of Empirical Testing
Testing relational ontology empirically is difficult by design. The framework does not posit objects, laws, or fixed entities; it posits relational structures and potentials. Observation cannot simply measure entities; it must detect patterns of actualisation across contexts.
Empirical stakes therefore differ from standard falsification. We are not seeking a single counterexample that invalidates a law. We are probing:
-
Can relational ontology generate discriminating scenarios — situations in which rival ontologies would fail where relational ontology succeeds, or vice versa?
-
Can it specify conditions for failure — what would empirically falsify its account of instantiation, construal, or system?
-
Can it inform predictions, rather than merely reinterpret observed events post hoc?
Without answers to these questions, the framework risks becoming interpretive rather than operative: a lens rather than a theory.
2. Rival Ontologies and Comparative Pressure
Empirical friction is meaningful only in contrast. Consider a rival ontology — one that assumes entities are independently individuated, and that relations are secondary. Could it explain the same phenomena equally well?
Take discursive shifts, for example:
-
A social event produces coordinated behaviour, shifting patterns of attention, speech, and action.
-
Relational ontology explains this as co-individuation of system and instance, with cuts and constraints emerging dynamically.
-
A rival ontology might treat the same event as the outcome of pre-existing structures, norms, or laws, and interpret the observed shifts as determined or externally constrained.
The empirical test: can relational ontology account for subtle, context-dependent variations — those shifts that emerge from the relational field rather than from predefined structures? Can it predict which patterns are likely to emerge under specific relational conditions?
If the rival account produces identical explanations without the relational apparatus, the explanatory advantage of relational ontology diminishes. The theory must therefore generate distinctive, observable predictions to demonstrate empirical relevance.
3. What Counts as Counter-Evidence
Counter-evidence is not merely disagreement or anomaly; it is a scenario that falsifies the explanatory claims of relational ontology:
-
Instance-Cut Mismatch – A phenomenon emerges that cannot be traced to any plausible relational cut, where the system’s potential fails to account for the instance.
-
Constraint Failure – An instantiation occurs that violates all known relational constraints, producing outcomes that relational ontology predicts as impossible.
-
Boundary Collapse in Practice – Semiotic meaning is predicted to remain distinct from non-semiotic value, but empirical observation shows total conflation, contrary to model expectations.
-
Predictive Deficiency – The model cannot discriminate between two relationally distinct scenarios; it interprets post hoc but cannot anticipate outcomes.
Each case is a potential rupture. By articulating these criteria, we subject relational ontology to genuine empirical pressure.
4. Testing the Model Against Observations
Empirical testing involves applying relational ontology to real-world cases across multiple domains. Examples:
-
Social Coordination – Examine networked human interactions, such as protests, negotiations, or online communities. Are patterns of attention, influence, and coordination better explained relationally than by entity-centric models? Can relational ontology anticipate shifts rather than just narrate them?
-
Textual Analysis – Consider evolving narratives in media or literature. Does relational ontology account for variations in genre, theme, or stylistic emergence that rival models cannot predict? Can it generate expectations about how certain textual potentials will actualise under specific socio-cultural conditions?
-
Phenomenology and Perception – Observe attention, perception, and consciousness as instantiations of potential. Are relational dynamics sufficient to explain shifts in focus or emergent patterns of experience that cannot be reduced to pre-existing cognitive structures?
In each case, the empirical test is not convenience. It is pressure: forcing the model to specify its predictive power and discriminate its explanatory scope.
5. The Limits of Prediction
Relational ontology is inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic. This raises a challenge: how do we evaluate predictions in the absence of strict law-like certainty?
The solution lies in discriminative power rather than exactitude:
-
Can the model anticipate relative likelihoods of certain instantiations given relational conditions?
-
Can it differentiate between outcomes that are relationally constrained versus those that are contingent or stochastic?
-
Can it provide a framework for expectation, such that deviations are interpretable as meaningful counter-evidence rather than arbitrary anomalies?
Empirical friction is thus a subtle test. It is not about precision in numbers or exact outcomes; it is about the ontology’s capacity to distinguish, anticipate, and account for relationally emergent phenomena.
6. Pressure-Testing Predictive Claims
To press the model further:
-
Scenario Construction – Design relational configurations where alternative outcomes could plausibly emerge. Can the model discriminate which is likely and which is unlikely?
-
Observation and Measurement – Monitor relational dynamics over time. Do instances, cuts, and constraints appear as predicted?
-
Comparison to Alternatives – Apply entity-centric, deterministic, or other theoretical frameworks. Where do they succeed or fail relative to relational ontology?
By systematically performing these steps, we generate empirical friction. The model is forced to reveal its limits and strengths in practice, not merely in theory.
7. When Empirical Friction Fails
What if relational ontology cannot specify predictions, discriminate outcomes, or account for certain instantiations? There are two possibilities:
-
Clarification – The theory may need refinement in its mechanisms of cut, constraint, or boundary. Stress reveals the precise loci of under-specification.
-
Reconsideration – Empirical failure may indicate a structural limit: the framework may be interpretive rather than generative, capable of narrating relational phenomena but not of guiding prediction or discrimination.
Both outcomes are valuable. The point is not to protect the model but to expose it to pressure, allowing the ontology to tremble and revealing the contours of possibility.
8. Closing: Empirical Pressure as Revelation
Empirical stakes are the first test outside purely conceptual terrain. They force relational ontology to engage with the world it claims to describe. Here, the framework must discriminate, anticipate, and endure comparison with rivals. It is a live test of tension between theory and instance.
-
Can it distinguish itself from other accounts?
-
Can it generate predictions rather than merely reinterpret?
-
Can it endure scenarios designed to destabilise its explanatory apparatus?
This is empirical friction: the site where possibility meets observation, where theory meets evidence, and where relational ontology either trembles or persists.
In the next post, we move to Post VI — Does the Model Collapse Into Itself?, confronting the final conceptual pressure point: recursion, reflexivity, and the potential for infinite regress within relational systems. Here, the ontology faces its most abstract and profound stress test yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment