Historicity and explanation |
| |
Authors: | Marc Ereshefsky Derek Turner |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Northwest Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada;2. Department of Philosophy, Connecticut College, Box #5606, 270 Mohegan Ave., New London, CT, 06320, United States |
| |
Abstract: | Some scientific explanations are distinctively historical. The aim of this paper is to say what gives such explanations their historical character. A secondary aim is to describe what makes an explanation a stronger or weaker historical explanation. We begin with a critical discussion of John Beatty's and Eric Desjardins' work on historicity and historical narrative. We then offer an alternative account of historical explanation that draws on the work of earlier philosophers (Gallie, Danto, Mink, and Hull). In that alternative account, we highlight four features of narrative explanation that Beatty and Desjardins underemphasize: central subjects; historical trajectories; the idea that historical narratives are known retrospectively; and criteria for determining what is a stronger or weaker historical narrative. |
| |
Keywords: | Historical explanation Historical narrative Central subject Historical trajectory Historicity Contingency |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|