Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T15:26:30.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Normative Assumptions in Historical Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Gregory Currie
Gregory Currie*
Affiliation:
University of Otago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper concerns the problem of how to give historical explanations of scientist's decisions to prefer one theory over another. It is argued that such explanations ought to contain only statements about the beliefs and preferences of the agents involved, and, in particular, ought not to include evaluative premises about the theories themselves. It is argued that Lakatos's attempt to build into such historical explanations premises of an evaluative kind is deficient. The arguments of Laudan to the effect that such explanations depend crucially upon evaluative assumptions about the rationality or irrationality of decisions are examined. It is argued that they do not establish the need for such assumptions.

Similar criticisms are then shown to be applicable to a version of the ‘hermeneutical’ model of explanation for human actions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 456 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Alan Musgrave and an anonymous referee for their careful criticisms of earlier drafts.

References

Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Currie, G. (1978), ‘Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology', Synthese 37: pp. 413–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1975), The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. and Geertz, H. (1975), Kinship in Bali. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1979), ‘The Role of Psychological Explanations of the Rejection or Acceptance of Scientific Theories’ Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 39, Series II.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978a), ‘History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions’ in Buck and Cohen (eds.) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8. Reprinted in J. Worrall and G. Currie (eds.) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978b) ‘Postscript on the History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions', in Worrall and Currie (eds.) ibid., pp. 189–92.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Zahar, E. G. (1976), ‘Why did Copernicus's Research Program supersede Ptolemy's?', in Westman (ed.) The Copernican Achievement. University of California Press. Reprinted in Worrall and Currie (eds.) ibid., pp. 168–92.Google Scholar
Latsis, S. (1972), ‘Situational Determinism in Economics', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23, pp. 207–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and its Problems. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972), Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1971), ‘The Model of the Text', Social Research 38, pp. 529–55.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1975), ‘Phenomenology and Hermeneutics', Nous 9, pp. 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. (1969), ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas', History and Theory 9, pp. 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. (1972), ‘"Social Meaning” and the Explanation of Action', in Laslett, Runciman and Skinner (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society, Forth Series, pp. 136–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1971), ‘Interpretation and the Sciences of Man', Review of Metaphysics 25, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
Westman, R. (1975a), ‘The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory', Isis 66, pp. 165–93.Google Scholar
Westman, R. (1975b), ‘Three Responses to the Copernican Theory: Johannes Praetorious, Tycho Brahe, and Michael Maestlin', in R. Westman (ed.) The Copernican Achievement, pp. 285–345. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, J. (1976), ‘Thomas Young and the “Refutation” of Newtonian Optics', in C. Howson (ed.) Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, pp. 107–79. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar