Phi 109
Spring 2016
site index
(Site navigation is not working.)
Phi 109 S16
 Reading guide for Thurs. 3/17: Carl Hempel, “The Function of General Laws in History” (pp. 35-48)—on JSTOR at 2017635

Carl Hempel (1905-1997) was one of a group of philosophers you will see referred to as “logical positivists” or “logical empiricists” (Hempel’s own choice of label was “analytic empiricist”). Most of his work concerned the philosophy of the natural sciences; but his thinking about the social sciences was quite influential, and you will see references to him, and to this paper in particular, in things you read later. Although its title suggests a focus on the single discipline of history, remember that any particular events involving people could be seen as part of history, so any scientific explanation of such events might be seen as a historical explanation.

Here are some suggestions of ideas to watch for and questions to think about as you read the paper.

• §§1-4 (pp. 35-39). Notice the general form, given in 2.1 (p. 36), that Hempel sees any explanation as having, one that involves deduction from certain premises that include laws. This is sometimes called the “deductive-nomological” or “covering-law” model of explanation (the term ‘nomological’ refers to laws). Notice also the tie he sees between explanation and prediction.

People have doubted whether the two are entirely parallel even in the natural sciences—what position on the question would you be inclined to take? Is it true that you can explain an event if and only if you have information that would have enabled you to predict it? Or can you explain some events you wouldn’t be able to predict—or, perhaps, predict events without being able to explain them.

• §5 (pp. 39-44) turns to explanations of historical events. Notice how he tries to use the idea of an “explanation sketch” to connect the sorts of explanations actually encountered in discussions of history with his model of explanation. Do you think he succeeds in doing this?

• §§6-8 (pp. 44-48) turn to a number of other ideas relevant to the understanding of historical events. Which of the points he makes seem the most persuasive and which the least persuasive?