How We Believe_ Science and the Search for God - Michael Shermer [138]
Contingency and necessity, long seen to be opposites on a continuum, are not mutually exclusive models of nature from which we must choose. Rather, they are descriptions of change that vary in the amount of their influence in the historical sequence. No one denies that such forces as politics, economics, religion, demographics, and geography impact individuals falling within their purview. Contingencies, however, exercise power sometimes in spite of these forces. At the same time they reshape new and future paths to be taken—think of cassette tapes winning out over eight-tracks, or VHS tapes defeating Beta. It is not that the victor is absolutely superior (and that the invisible hand of the free market always selects the best product), but that quirky events may give one a market edge over the other, and once we start down that path it may be difficult to leap the ever-deepening trough—the QWERTY Principle in action.
There is in this system a rich matrix of interactions among contingencies and necessities, varying over time, in what I call the model of contingent-necessity, which states: In the development of any historical sequence the role of contingencies in the construction of necessities is accentuated in the early stages and attenuated in the later.
There are corollaries that encompass six aspects of the model, including:
Corollary 1: The earlier in the development of any historical sequence, the more chaotic the actions of the individual elements of that sequence are; and the less predictable are future actions and necessities. In other words, chaos reigns early, making long-term prediction all but impossible—think of the initial stages in the development of a storm and how poor meteorologists are at predicting when, where, and how strong the weather pattern will be.
Corollary 2: The later in the development of any historical sequence, the more ordered the actions of the individual elements of that sequence are; and the more predictable are future actions and necessities. In other words, order reigns late, increasing predictive power—think of the late stages in a weather system and how accurate meteorologists are at pinpointing when, where, and how strong the storm will be.
Corollary 3: The actions of the individual elements of any historical sequence are generally postdictable but not specifically predictable, as regulated by Corollaries 1 and 2. In other words, in all stages in a sequence, early and late, it is much easier to look back to reconstruct how and why it unfolded as it did, but always difficult to say what is going to happen next—think of the fall of the Berlin Wall in August of 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, neither of which was anticipated by even the most seasoned politicians and authoritative political scientists.
Corollary 4: Change in historical sequences from chaotic to ordered is common, gradual, followed by relative stasis, and tends to occur at points where poorly established necessities give way to dominant ones, so that a contingency will have little effect in altering the direction of the sequence. In other words, historical pathways are cut gradually and deeply, stabilizing the system so that order dominates over chaos—think of how most countries usually are stable, secure, and resist change of all sorts.
Corollary 5: Change in historical sequences from ordered to chaotic is rare, sudden. followed by relative nonstasis, and tends to occur