Реферат: The Quarrel About Historical Explanation Essay Research

The Quarrel About Historical Explanation Essay, Research Paper

The Quarrel About Historical Explanation

The discussion of the philosophical question of historical explanation

is in reality a disagreement concerning the nature of the philosophic method.

There are primarily two sides taken in this argument, those who agree

with Carl Hempel and those that do not.

According to Hempel a historical event is only sufficiently explained

when it logically fits a set of confirmed pre-existing conditions along with

some universal laws.

Certainly all things cannot easily be assigned to rules and laws.

Political coups, assassinations and revolutions are too complex for such a rigid

explanation. And who is to say what perquisites there are for situations.

Certainly there is no one who can predict every instance of a given event, there

are just too many variables.

Hempel then notes that Historians are seldom able to stick to his

procedure and at best can only make an explanation sketch. Hempel seems to be

saying then, that the majority of explanations surrounding historical events are

inadequate and incomplete.

There are three main divisions of anti-Hempelians. There are those that

agree with Hempel to the point that there are rules and general laws that can be

followed, but a historian’s explanation is adequate if all he can provide is a

sketch. The second group states that the general laws are not necessary and as

long as the explanation provides an understandable narrative, it is complete.

The final group believes that only one condition is necessary, and if more

information is needed, one only needs to elaborate on that one condition.

The Hempelians and the anti-Hempelians both have common ground. They

are both engaged in the philosophy of history, but this is where the agreement

stops for even the groups starting points are different.

Hempelians give their explanations to answer the question of why