Carl Hempel was one of the most prominent philosophers of science in the twentieth century, and his covering law model, otherwise known as the deductive-nomological model, puts scientific explanations on the same reasoning footing as predictions; they are both deductive arguments. On the full understanding that science is not exclusive to natural sciences, for the purposes of this paper, I shall only discuss the formation and purpose of scientific explanations in one particular aspect of natural science, eclipses. According to Hempel's deductive-nomological model, the explanation as to why eclipses occur can be reduced to a logical relationship between statements: the explanandum is a consequence of the explanans. This syllogistic method of reasoning forms the general law that eclipses occur when the Earth travels between the Sun and the Moon, and it requires an understanding of the fundamental scientific law that light always travels along straight lines. We can test the deduced general law on several occasions and under different circumstances, and it shall hold true for all trials. Implicitly, this means that scientific laws are not just tools to make predictions, but they are genuine statements that describe the world. Its accuracy allows us to extrapolate more general laws using the deduced law given its accuracy.
Historical explanations may not allow such freedom in extrapolation, but the formation and purpose of one is quite similar to that of a scientific explanation, despite the rather widely held opinion is that in contrast to natural sciences, there exists no general laws in history which may govern the events. However, since well-established Causal laws are rarely found in history, laws in this field are sometimes regarded to as explanation sketches, which are vague and incomplete preliminary accounts leading to fully supported explanations like those in science. The formation of a historical explanation is largely based on the insight of the historian or social scientist. They formulate an analysis of the five elements involved in human actions which include aim, assessment of situation, choice of means, drive and context. A letter from the Vancouver School Board was recently issued to parents informing them of the school board's $7.12 million funding deficit. Their aim prepare parents and students for any impact they might feel as a result of this deficit; their assessment is that a widespread knowledge of the budget may ease tension between parents valiantly pushing their children into already-cramped schools and the schools themselves; the drive is perhaps the desire of the trustee to keep their jobs; and the context is the declining enrollment, a provincial funding formula that does not fund annual cost increases and does not account for inflation. Many occurrences, past and present, may be explained this way, but events do not always turn out as planned, causing an explanation based on the insight of the researcher and the intent of the subject scrutinized may lack validity.
One application of historical explanations is to foreshadow events, and to a certain extent, it gives warning while simultaneously achieving the role of reassurance. Most recently, there has been a rising anxiety in the economic situation of the world. Telltale signs of recession include a rise in unemployment, declining manufacturing output and declining personal incomes. Nevertheless, as countless people experience the implementations of the economic slump, there are those who do not see the need to be worried. Indeed, economic recessions and booms are components of a sine curve that inevitably turns down once in a while. In fact, there has been over seven recessions in the past 40 years, the longest of which lasted sixteen months and the shortest only six. People can rest assured that the world has been able to handle more severe recessions such as the one in the 1930s, and that the current one will peak into economic boom in due time.
However useful scientific and historical explanations may be in predicting outcomes, there comes a time where neither one is favourable over the other, and even when the two work conjunctively, an explanation cannot be formed. When my apartment was broken into around two months ago, despite my bewilderment and disbelief of the situation, the manager stood firm on the grounds that the building locks were impenetrable, and that the burglar could only have gotten in with a copy of our keys. He also stated that it was virtually impossible to break in if the upper lock, which was guarded by a sturdy brass plate, was locked. He also reasoned that the building was under constant surveillance, and tenants were advised not to let anyone follow them through the entrance to the building. As the appropriate conclusion to the premises, and also taking into account my less than fully mature countenance, he deduced that in my carelessness I had forgotten to lock the door that day, and some delinquent had taken advantage of that. Albeit a reasonable and logical explanation from his perception, yet on that day I was above all certain that I had dutifully locked both locks before leaving, and had checked to make sure, once again rendering it impossible to break in without a key, which was also not likely since my father and I both presented the only keys to the apartment upon investigation. All of this conflicted with the manager's reasoning. However, during the investigation my resourceful father also recounted an instance where I, in my hurry to get to school, had left the door wide open upon departure. This provided the manager with a seemingly sound historical explanation that if I was capable of carelessness once, under similar circumstances I would also have that capacity. My emotional refutal of that claim did eventually clear my name, but to this day we have yet to find out who was it, and how they could have broken in and taken everything in our apartment that was worth anything.
Some may argue that scientific and historical explanations are distinct and immiscible since they address different areas of knowledge. Science is more concerned with seeking universal laws to explain the phenomenons of the physical world. History, on the other hand, deals with unique and particular scenarios, and even with the deduction of a general law, cannot be further applied and extrapolated to every situation. Both of these explanations rise from the human desire to know one's surrounding environment and being able to not only account but to also account for their past actions. Not only will a good explanation accomplish both of these outcomes, it must also incorporate the two kinds of explanations discussed when perceiving and analyzing the situation. When the two are united they hold true, and divided they fall as an incomplete inference.
Word count: 1396
Bibliography
Doskoch, Bill. "What are the Warning Signs of a Possible Recession?" CTV News. 2009. 26 ddd January, 2009. 12 April, 2009. <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/
20080125/recession_symptoms_080125/20080126/>.
Hempel, Carl. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of ddddScience. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
Hempel, Carl. "The Function of General Laws in History." The Journal of Philosophy 39 dddd(1942): 38-45.
Murzi, Mauro. "Carl Gustav Hempel (1905-1997)." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. 12 April, 2009 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hempel.htm>.
Stanford, Michael. A Companion to the Study of History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
