Carl Gustav Hempel, a German-born philosopher was one of the prominent philosophers of science in the twentieth century. He was known as one of the proponents of the so-called logical empiricism or logical positivism which is a central concept in science and the scientific method. It states that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. According to logical positivist, everything can be explained by science. Empirical is used in science with working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. (wikipedia)
. Hempel attempts to explain that history is a science and to check on that challenge that history claimed the methodological patterns of science. I would have to disagree with him on the idea that history is a form of a physical science and I quote: “history is concerned with the description of particular events of the past rather than with the search for general laws which might govern those events.” (Hempel, 1942)
That is where the term “law” came into picture. The main function of these laws according to Hempel, is to connect events in a pattern usually referred to as explanation and prediction. If I may say, the function of the general law is to explain the event in such a way that there is a cause and an effect or preceding and causal conditions. Hempel brought about two explanations for these:
First, A set of statements asserting the occurrence of certain events C1 through CN at certain times and places and second, a set of universal hypothesis such that: a) The statement of both groups are reasonably well confirmed by empirical evidence, and, b) From the two groups of statements, the sentence asserting the occurrence of event E can be logically deduced.
The first group which according to my understanding would mean the initial conditions before the event and the event itself is definitely undeniable. . It is like the boundary conditions that creates the event. History is about events so there is no question about it. The second group however, And in fact one could argue that the same thing would hold for history doesn’t follow because history cannot follow a specific model. Although, an event may seem to happen in the same pattern as another event like some Great Wars and revolutions or the aftermath of a bloody election, we will see that history have shown that it is not always that way. We should always consider the context of the event. And I quote Hempel: “...is impossible to give a complete explanation of an individual event in the sense of accounting for all its general characteristics by means of universal hypothesis. All explanations are connected to a particular description or set of descriptions. It is ideographic or concerned with the Individual. The determining conditions are not always the same in all events. “(Hempel)
And then there’s what is called as the pseudo explanations. I disagree on this issue because it is not right to explain things historical events using false explanations. It’s like a guess. There should always be a document, a source to prove the event. There must be a scientific explanation rather than by just mere understanding of the conditions. It must be valid. Although, according to Hempel, there are events that has an incomplete explanation or can be summed up and explained without the pseudo explanation because we have reason why we have to believe such an event and some events cannot be explained but also cannot be dismissed as not important.
Another statement that I would like to discuss is the Nomothetic and ideographic. Nomothetic is based on what Kant described as a tendency to generalize, and is expressed in the natural sciences. It describes the effort to derive laws that explain objective phenomena while Idiographic is a tendency to specify and the effort to understand phenomena. I would have to stress that these two although related in the sense that they both explain an event they are quite different. But I would have to say that Hempel made quite a good notion using this on his theories. The nomothetic model tries to find the variables that account for the differences in the historical events (because not all events will happen the same way if I may say) and the idiographic focuses on the completeness of the event.
As a whole, I believe that Hempel made a good discussion of his general laws of history. I believe that history is unique.
. Hempel attempts to explain that history is a science and to check on that challenge that history claimed the methodological patterns of science. I would have to disagree with him on the idea that history is a form of a physical science and I quote: “history is concerned with the description of particular events of the past rather than with the search for general laws which might govern those events.” (Hempel, 1942)
That is where the term “law” came into picture. The main function of these laws according to Hempel, is to connect events in a pattern usually referred to as explanation and prediction. If I may say, the function of the general law is to explain the event in such a way that there is a cause and an effect or preceding and causal conditions. Hempel brought about two explanations for these:
First, A set of statements asserting the occurrence of certain events C1 through CN at certain times and places and second, a set of universal hypothesis such that: a) The statement of both groups are reasonably well confirmed by empirical evidence, and, b) From the two groups of statements, the sentence asserting the occurrence of event E can be logically deduced.
The first group which according to my understanding would mean the initial conditions before the event and the event itself is definitely undeniable. . It is like the boundary conditions that creates the event. History is about events so there is no question about it. The second group however, And in fact one could argue that the same thing would hold for history doesn’t follow because history cannot follow a specific model. Although, an event may seem to happen in the same pattern as another event like some Great Wars and revolutions or the aftermath of a bloody election, we will see that history have shown that it is not always that way. We should always consider the context of the event. And I quote Hempel: “...is impossible to give a complete explanation of an individual event in the sense of accounting for all its general characteristics by means of universal hypothesis. All explanations are connected to a particular description or set of descriptions. It is ideographic or concerned with the Individual. The determining conditions are not always the same in all events. “(Hempel)
And then there’s what is called as the pseudo explanations. I disagree on this issue because it is not right to explain things historical events using false explanations. It’s like a guess. There should always be a document, a source to prove the event. There must be a scientific explanation rather than by just mere understanding of the conditions. It must be valid. Although, according to Hempel, there are events that has an incomplete explanation or can be summed up and explained without the pseudo explanation because we have reason why we have to believe such an event and some events cannot be explained but also cannot be dismissed as not important.
Another statement that I would like to discuss is the Nomothetic and ideographic. Nomothetic is based on what Kant described as a tendency to generalize, and is expressed in the natural sciences. It describes the effort to derive laws that explain objective phenomena while Idiographic is a tendency to specify and the effort to understand phenomena. I would have to stress that these two although related in the sense that they both explain an event they are quite different. But I would have to say that Hempel made quite a good notion using this on his theories. The nomothetic model tries to find the variables that account for the differences in the historical events (because not all events will happen the same way if I may say) and the idiographic focuses on the completeness of the event.
As a whole, I believe that Hempel made a good discussion of his general laws of history. I believe that history is unique.
________________________________
Sources:
Logical positivism. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from www.wikipedia.org
Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history. In The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.
Logical positivism. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from www.wikipedia.org
Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history. In The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.
No comments:
Post a Comment