Inherent phenomena raise the explanatory question why-not-sooner, not why

Evidence

Per contra, something is inherent either if it always will happen (e.g., entropy) or if the potentiality for it always exists and actuality can only be obstructed. Just when the inevitable occurs or hindrances are removed is decided by contingencies: chance occurrences that hinder or facilitate. As contingency does not entail randomness or inability to control, so inherency does not imply fully predictable determinacy. The decay of an automobile surely is inherent, even without any accidents. When or how it will fall apart, though, is not fully predictable. But basic questions of explanation differ in cases of inherency: we usually want to know why the inherent did not occur sooner, what obstructed or delayed decay and “termination.” In contingencies, then, the puzzle is “why”; in inherency it is “why not?” — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4269

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines inherency and its distinctive explanatory puzzle, contrasted against contingency.
• CANDY: The ‘why vs why-not’ inversion is a crisp, tweetable framing of two modes of causal thinking.