Covering laws in historical practice

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 14 (1-4):445-463 (1971)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Carl G. Hempel has expressed the view that explanation in history is of a kind with explanation in any other branch of empirical science. Historians, according to him, aim at showing that the events they describe are not matters of chance. In the author's opinion there is no necessary connection between these two statements. Historians often aim at showing that the events they describe are matters of chance. But this does not make explanation in history different from explanation in other branches of empirical science

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A problem of our own making: Roth on historical explanation.John H. Zammito - 2008 - Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2):244-249.
Covering law explanation.Thomas Nickles - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (4):542-561.
Evidence and events in history.Leon J. Goldstein - 1962 - Philosophy of Science 29 (2):175-194.
Historical laws in modern biology.Not By Me - 1983 - Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3).
The covering law model of historical explanation.Stanley Paluch - 1968 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 11 (1-4):368 – 387.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
17 (#843,162)

6 months
2 (#1,263,261)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The covering law model of historical explanation.Stanley Paluch - 1968 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 11 (1-4):368 – 387.

Add more references