On explanation
One criticism that is often hurled at any circular statement or system is that it does not “explain” anything. But I would argue that circularity is the only possible way to fix the fundamental weakness of the very notion of explanation.
Explanation very generally suffers from the virtus dormitiva syndrome. Any phenomenon or principle that is explained, is explained by somehow connecting it to another phenomenon or principle. The making of the connection itself is often a source of such satisfaction and excitement that one often overlooks the fact that one question has simply been replaced by another. This is the classic philosophical sleight of hand, whereby the reader (and oftentimes also the writer) is tricked into believing he understands the subject better, when in fact the hole in the understanding has only been temporarily shifted up the writer’s sleeve.
There is only one way to avoid the infinite regress: the regress must at some point loop back. When this happens, the phenomenon itself becomes, in a sense, a part of its own “explanation”. However, when this happens one can no longer be properly speaking of a chain of explanations but rather of a consistent set of ideas.
I would argue that such self consistent loops are in fact the real stuff of philosophy and of science, in spite of all attempts to deny it. Even the best theories we have do not explain anything, but they are internally consistent, and consistent with observations. For example the laws of quantum mechanics are internally consistent because they do not lead to contradictions, and they are consistent with experiments. The experiments are designed according to results and calculations which are derived from the principles of quantum mechanics, principles which were in turn designed by the founding fathers in such a way as to be consistent with experiment. The circular nature of the logical structure is obvious, and one can see immediately that nothing is truly explained.
It may be argued that some principles are just obvious, they are simply self evident truths, fundamentally monolithic and independent of any other agency, and that they may safely be used as foundations for a system of thought. But this can never be the case. One can always go further by asking “Why is it (the world, the universe) this way and not some other way?” The infinite regress cannot be avoided.
Consequently, the evolutionary theory I propose, based on self-consistent cycles rather than on deduction from principles, brings nothing new, but it makes explicit what scientists and philosophers have tried to sweep under the rug for centuries.
The unique feature of tautologous or circular arguments such as the evolution theory which I propose is exactly the fact that they emphatically do not claim to explain anything. They simply provide a mechanism which is coherent and consistent with observation, and that is enough. At any rate, it must be enough, because we will never do any better.
The best theories we have, are considered to be good not because they explain anything. However, they reduce the complexity and mystery of the universe that surrounds us to one or several relatively simple facts or statements, statements which are within reach of our mental capacities. But nothing is ever really explained; moreover, the laws of science themselves evolve along with the evolution of our knowledge and our understanding. They are simply condensed versions of our knowledge, and, since our knowledge, as well as the universe itself, evolves, these laws will also evolve over time. Physical laws are nothing more than information bottlenecks in the continuous evolving cycles which are scientific theories. A more detailed discussion is available in my “Theism and the logic of evolution” article.
