Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:00:06.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uniqueness and Historical Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Evan Fales
Evan Fales*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an argument for the claim that historical events are unique in a nontrivial sense which entails the inapplicability of the Hempelian D-N model to historical explanations. Some previous criticisms of Hempel are shown to be general criticisms of the D-N model which can be outflanked in cases where a reduction to fundamental laws is available. I then survey grounds for denying that explanations by reasons can be effectively reduced to causal explanations, and for rejecting methodological individualism. I conclude with some positive remarks concerning the structure of historical explanations and sense in which historical events are unique.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 260 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carroll, L. (1985), ‘What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.‘ Mind N.S. 4, No. 14. pp. 278–280.Google Scholar
Dray, W. (1963), ‘The Historical Explanation of Actions Reconsidered.’ In Hook, Sidney (ed.), Philosophy and History: A Symposium. New York: New York University Press, pp. 105–135.Google Scholar
Fales, E. (1977), ‘The Ontology of Social Roles.‘ Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7, No. 2, pp. 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fales, E. (1978), ‘Theoretical Simplicity and Defeasibility.‘ Philosophy of Science 45, No. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, C. (1957), ‘Explanation and Interpretation in History.‘ Philosophy of Science 24, No. 2, pp. 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1955), ‘Explanations in History and the Genetic Sciences.‘ Mind N.S. 64, pp. 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, A. (1968), ‘Works of Art and Other Cultural Objects.‘ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 68, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1942), ‘The Function of General Laws in History.‘ The Journal of Philosophy 39, pp. 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G., (1962), ‘Rational Action.‘ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 35, pp. 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G., (1963), ‘Reasons and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation.’ In Hook, Sydney (ed.), Philosophy and History: A Symposium. New York: New York University Press, pp. 143–163.Google Scholar
Joynt, C. B., and Rescher, N. (1961), ‘The Problem of Uniqueness in History.‘ History and Theory 1, pp. 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantorowicz, E. H. (1957), The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medievel Political Theology, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1965), ‘Causes and Conditions,‘ American Philosophical Quarterly 2.4, pp. 245–55 and 261–4.Google Scholar
Marc-Wagau, K. (1962), ‘On Historical Explanation,‘ Theoria 28, pp. 213–33.Google Scholar
Margolis, J. (1974a), ‘Reductionism and the Ontological Aspects of Consciousness.‘ Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 4, pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. (1974b), ‘Works of Art as Physically Embodied and Culturally Emergent Entities.‘ The British Journal of Aesthetics 14, pp. 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. (1977), ‘The Ontological Peculiarity of Works of Art.‘ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, pp. 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. (1978), Persons and Minds: The Prospects of Nonreductive Materialism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. LVII. Cohen, Robert S. and Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.), Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. G. (1973), Our Knowledge of the Historical Past. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967a), ‘The Mental Life of Some Machines.’ In Castañeda, Hector-Neri (ed.), Intensionality, Minds, and Perception. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 148–179.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967b), ‘Psychological Predicates.’ In Capitan, W. H. and Merrill, D. D. (eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1959), ‘Truisms as the Grounds for Historical Explanations.’ In Gardiner, Patrick (ed.), Theories of History. New York: The Free Press, pp. 443–475.Google Scholar