History + Science
Obviously, history is a totally different subject with science. Different view points are shared and different experiments and laws are applied. But does it mean that there isn’t any interrelationship between these two very different looking subjects?
Carl G. Hempel’s view of history is more like a scientists approach to certain kind of events in history. Hempel believes that there is a certain law that is behind every events of history and when these laws are not defined clearly, then it is to him a pseudo explanation.
For example, the reason that President Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war was the call of God is a pseudo explanation to Hempel. The call from God can’t be explained by scientific experimentation.
Valid explanation in basis of scientific experimentation according to Hempel is called “the General laws.” And these valid explanations should go through certain processes in order to be “valid” according to Hempel.
In every general law or universal hypothesis, there is the presence of C and E. C in this case stands for “cause” and E for the “effect.” Hempel’s theory is somewhat of a combination of science and mathematics in order to understand the specific law that lies underneath an event of a history.
A truly scientific explanation should always be capable for objective test. First method is the initial condition. This means that this initial condition should be and can be empirically verified.
There should be some valid explanations and evidence to support the event that has occurred in the history. For example when American Revolution happened, there should be some evidences that lead to this war against British Parliament. The reason for American Revolution according to historians wasn’t just because the Americans didn’t have representatives in Great Britain. But the ultimate reason is that Britain limited the economic freedom of rich American colonizers, the House of Burgesses, through stamp act, navigation act, and other acts.
This explains the American Revolution better that just saying that American Revolution was the fight of freedom. Freedom is not seen. It is something that is vague. Therefore it is not a scientific explanation, its pseudo explanation.
The second method is to be tested by universal hypothesis. It’s obvious that Hempel is really attracted to science when he is explaining history because he uses the word “hypothesis” which in scientific term means educated guess.
Universal hypothesis is hypothesis that can be verified all over the world. For instance, the falling of an apple is universal hypothesis. We strongly believe that the apple will fall down from the tree in France and also in other countries. We believe that the apple will fall rather than being uplifted again to the sky. The law of gravitational force is a universal hypothesis in some sense.
If an event is able to pass both initial conditions, then there is the last type of method to verify if an event in the history is general law that can be scientifically explained or a vague pseudo explanation that is no good in Hempel’s view. And this method is to defend against the contradiction.
When the explanation is questioned after the law was proposed in a certain event, then the law formulator who has passed both initial conditions, should be capable of answering the contradicting arguments.
My position in Hempel’s theory is neutral. It’s hard to disagree his method because there are too many verification factors that make the law in history. But I believe that history is unique in some sense. Classifying everything that is unexplainable pseudo explanation doesn’t make much sense to me.
I think it is somewhat a lame excuse for Hempel when he says that history is a soft science. It is not totally scientific because history can’t be totally explained by science that is why he calls it a soft science.
Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history.
In The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.
No comments:
Post a Comment