Historiographic Understanding

Giuseppina D’Oro

Cabarle, Adrian Jhon T.

II-8 BSSE
Questions
 1.
How is Historiography related to the
other fields of science?
 2.What is the difference between science
of nature and science of mind?
 3. What is exact and inexact sciences?
 4.Should the science of mind and science
of nature be put in the same category?
 5.What is the goal of nature and mind
science?
Framework

Davidson

The Ontological
Turn and the New
Causalist
Consensus
Key Concepts

Science of mind = Historiography

Science of nature = Natural Science

The Argument for
Methodological Unity
 The argument for methodological unity shows
that there is no specific difference between the
results of science of mind and natural science.

Carl G. Hempel believes that explanations in

historiography share the same logical structure
as explanations in natural science. The reason
why it seems to be different is because
historians uses general laws as reference, which
are nonetheless, assume by their explanations
Inexact and Exact

John Stuart Mill described the science of

mind as inexact due to its complex system
which makes it difficult to have precise
predictions and described science of nature
as exact because of its strict predictions.
The Argument
against
Methodological Unity
 Explanation in the sciences of the mind differ from
explanation in the natural sciences, not because it focuses on
human behaviour rather than natural events, but because
they are concerned with the behaviour of human beings in so
far as it counts as action or as an expression of rational
thought.
 Historiographic explanations are thus “rational explanations”
and they differ from explanation in natural science not
because they study different things (human beings rather
than natural phenomena), but because they study them in
different ways. To explain rationally requires constructing a
practical argument and to establish a logical fit between an
agent’s beliefs and motives and his actions.
• The goal of natural science is the prediction and mastery of
nature while the sciences of mind is to understand.

• The methodological autonomy of historiography would claim that

the pursuit of truth positively hinders the hermeneutic search for
understanding, since the task of the historian is to uncover the
rationale underlying the actions of agents and to uncover such
rationale requires endorsing, even if just for argument’s sake,
the epistemic and motivational premises of the agent.

• Whilst conducting his inquiries the natural scientist must

assume nature to be uniform, because the uniformity of nature is
a presupposition for carrying out inductive generalizations, no
such assumption can be made by the historian who must, on
pain of failing to understand, assume that the agents whose
thoughts he is trying to understand may not share his epistemic,
moral, and aesthetic beliefs
 The Ontological
Turn and the New
Causalist Consensus
 Actions, Reasons and Causes
-Donald Davidson

He denies the “reasons are not causes”  because he believed

that an agent's reasons for acting cannot be the causes of his
action. He maintained a hybrid position within the debate.
On the one hand he agrees with the claim that reasons are
not causes in so far as the concept of action is not reducible
to the concept of an event and action explanations have an
irreducibly normative element that is not found in causal
explanations. On the other hand, Davidson holds that reasons
are causes in a metaphysical sense, because there is only
one ontology, an ontology of events.
Anomalous Monism
Anomalous Monism answer’s the question "how is mental
causation possible? by showing that mental events are
effective because they are ontologically the same with
physical events even if conceptually irreducible to them.
His solution to the problem of mental causation is to
disagree that mental events are effective in so far as they
are ontologically the same with physical events, and the
latter are, by assumption.
Conclusion
The science of mind or Historiography uses methodology based
on logical reasoning. It is mainly concerned about behavior of
human being and the expression of rational thought. Meanwhile
the science of nature uses numerical methodology to get exact
and calculated results. Both sides are making points about how
these two sciences do relates and oppose each other. Both are
guided with facts and supporting details. But base on the
reading I would right to side with the against methodological,
because it is more rationale and a human behaviour cannot be
measured by any numerical method.
References:
Fuat Firat A. (1987). “Historiography, Scientific Method”, and Exceptional
Historical Events. In NA – “Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14,
eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Andersonm, Provo, UT”: Association for
Consumer Research, Pages: 435-438
Hempel C. (1942). “The Function of General Laws of History, Journal of
Philosophy”, 39, pp. 35-48
Dray, W. H. (1957a). “Historical Understanding as Rethinking,” University
of Toronto Quarterly, 27, pp. 200–15.
Davidson, D. (1963). “Actions, Reasons and Causes,” Journal of
Philosophy, 60, pp. 685–700. Repr. In D. Donald (1980), Essays on Actions
and Events (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 3–19.