The Quarrel About Historical Explanation :: essays research papers

The Quarrel About Historical ExplanationThe discussion of the philosophical question of historical explanationis in reality a disagreement concerning the nature of the philosophic method.There are primarily two sides taken in this argument, those who agreewith Carl Hempel and those that do non.According to Hempel a historical event is only sufficiently explainedwhen it logic exclusivelyy fits a set of confirmed pre-existing conditions along withsome universal laws. for certain all things buttnot easily be assigned to rules and laws.Political coups, assassinations and revolutions are too complex for such a rigidexplanation. And who is to say what perquisites there are for situations. for sure there is no one who can predict every instance of a given event, thereare just too many variables.Hempel hence notes that Historians are seldom able to stick to hisprocedure and at best can only make an explanation sketch. Hempel seems to besaying then, that the majority of explanations en viron historical events areinadequate and incomplete.There are three main divisions of anti-Hempelians. There are those thatagree with Hempel to the point that there are rules and general laws that can befollowed, but a historians explanation is adequate if all he can provide is asketch. The second group states that the general laws are not necessary and aslong as the explanation provides an understandable narrative, it is complete.The final group believes that only one condition is necessary, and if moreinformation is needed, one only needs to elaborate on that one condition.The Hempelians and the anti-Hempelians both have common ground. Theyare both engaged in the philosophy of history, but this is where the agreement lucre for even the groups starting points are different.Hempelians give their explanations to answer the question of whysomething happened. Their objective is to replace curiosity with understanding.For this to happen both the laws and general rules given mustiness logically agree.In other words you must be able to deduce the answer after given the laws andrules.It would not be enough for a Hempelian to hear that conditions led up toan event. He must know himself that these conditions are causes, and hell knowthis only if the conditions are widely known or confirmed causes of give tongue to event.These conditions must not only be confirmed but true or the explanation wouldmerely be an exercise in futility.An anti-Hempelians problem with all of this is summarized in thathistorians do not use such methods to do their explaining, even if they did anexplanation may not result, and finally historians are doing a very beautiful job