can history be a science?

7/27/2019 Can History Be a Science?

1/8

PEKKINGENGIN LEKKINGTIL HEIDURS RNORIHANNIBALSSYNI

TTLEFNIF T0AnnAFMIELIHANS24.MARS 004NIIKAEI-KAI tLSS0N

CAN HISTORY E A SCIENCE']

b:t, ' , uu.,r, t : )r l r?l l . t iv .-r, t ; t .qd lesgja ri l r i tsetd i bt ik t i l heidurs ArttdriI1 I l t t t t t t i l ,uLr's.r 'rr ir ' f r, l rugrrt t tt t Jutrrrtteli lr verid stutfs lel l trt i t t t i t t t t prj t i t iu ti roq lp.t ' i t r r l l legtt t i t id ul t t t i rf utt t r t ' i t - Ll t lurssttk i r.

Eg t rc l ekk i tL t t t r i d n ik id vi d t ' i i t tu tg .se l i t ii he ly t t t l t r tgu.s l i0 tuu l r r r i i s ,t ' tLgtttJ i 'rc)ig sog,tt .speki .tt pes.sa i tge d l tel ig.:kri lu0 oe l t f in he.f i r pe.sstt trb6 k t i l l Lc idur ' .st t t r i t ' i J le i r i et t e i t r t r i i s tadr t .

FIrstt t t is t ieddtt r i r1 Lterrrri r fettgisf i ' ld rogri . Eg f!t t t i r i tgr rt) i t tu t1t1t-hal legtt settt ol t i t tberanJttri l '1"tr,r, '7. , leserttberdrid 2()0 v id l rei t t t .spekiskrtt 'Ht isk6luns (]enri tL i t t i l iu. Ft,ri r lesturi t t t t 'ur st i t 's luklegttt l t t lur stri t lett tutt tet r l tort trtrt ' t t r l iku nl l ttd ud b.jddu sttrt ls .f i lagutrt nItrturt l tei t t tspeki .r g i i rrrs jott t trrt t idog rdk.settnl i t^.dulri lgungur ri tgerdtLrintr(trcr ekki ad svtnt t twduJgerntdi htett i spurtt i t tgtrntt i etn er l tei t i hetrtrtLr dc t eggl t t ti l t 'el ( i tuttkudtLskiLgrei t t ingu i sogu (verkeft i sent er r)rugglegtt t f t ,u.rid tL[t t trt t trc l i leikutrr),I rek l t t r d s i , t rL tJnut ti l * 'ent ig l rcegt i tf i r r t i l gus t r t t r t ' t t i t rg t t rf pe.s .s t tL tg itgvat 'pa d pe r 11d:iog t,ott t tnt l i ski l t t i t tgi stud pessud letuh ( gugtsktusutttbnetunt .

Ri tgerdi t t vttr pt idt l tned l i t l run brel ' t i t rgrtt t t i l i t lui i .sku tf Egle l l ' i t t ig-AIotc ' i l rkev ic iu teg geJ in i t r t tedhei t i t t r t ,A r i s tor i j t tgu l i but i ta tks l t t .sT" l i t -I tc i isktttrcttrt i t tgurthtrctri ti t tu ul tul its Bztrtri 2005 7, bls. 9-21). Pettu et.dntt-ur dstei)tt pess u0 ritgerditt ho.t'irpessari b6k pvl Lt1 Artrtir lnJitr I nfirg tir (ogheJi l r ,Ltfuluust tut) t t t ikhrtr hugtr i Elstnt.sol ts li )trc l rt trt t trtg hefi l r udstodudsttt t sJdLugtt iu


2/8

9 0 A F I V I , L I S R I T R N C J R S A N N I B A L S S O N A R

l tessaredctnmdlsgreittttrsenr g endttrtek td t'oraekkicj l lum thtt?asend-tfttum et n ornrt i .am) vari ekki purningtmurndu gagnrl l tti tmi 6rlega eLt:npcer ge.fardr tekiferi til u6 skyrn eturJt'rir escuttlLrttgrrtokkr? todisentekkierttnrcgi legaj6sir ri tgerl irtni '

IIt woulclbe pointlesso tr y to discttsshe cluestion,Ca n histtlrybe e sci-ence,l" .vithoutlari tying ts central erms, histclry" nd science". or thereis no general greementboutwhat hesc ermsmean; nc lndccd, t is doLrbt-fu l that he ynteananything er y specitic,aken n isolation io m th evaritruscontexts f discoursen which they nlay aPpear' cl iscttssitlnaseduptlnvague nd contesteclerms s bound o be withoutproti t.what we need o dtlis o stipulate teaningsbr thesake iour present iscussion,l terwhich weca n eflect po n heconclusi6nso whichotl l-stipulationsav e ed rs 'Perhapswe wil l be satistred it h ou r work; cl rperhaps e wil l beconre clnvincedha tth estipulationsha twe nracle er emisleading r fi 'uitless'

I ILet us tirst say hatsciences the systenrctticnt l critical seurcltJbr he ct1t1t


3/8

92 A FI V I , L I S R I TARNORS I 'TANNIBALSSONAITpr(tc:ice, e rel 'er nc emoro o th emethodoltlgicaltandardsecognized ndsupported y the scienti l lc ttmmunity. hese, ve said,undell ie he cri ticalaspect f scienoe,br it is with an eye 0 these tandardsha t nvestigations,hypttthesesnd esults omluunicatedo the scienti tlc omtnuntty re l leantto be received. ut these tandardsrg alsowhat shape he searchbl under-standingo whichwe hcreattach henattle cieitce. hey are hestandardsha tscienti tlc ducation nd rainingar emeant o inculcaten thosewh o wtluldbecome ar t of the scienti fic ol i l t l runity;ndeecl, n understandingt, andrespect br , these tandarcls ay be viewedas th e lonly) true credential fniembershipn thatci l lnmunttY.

The stanclaldsn question reaccepte(l tandards tl ' t'idertce,ttferenceutclsound rdctice. hereare nrpgrtantealnts f incluiry o which no suchstan-dards pply.Philosophy, hichrnaybe characterizedsa systematicndcriticalseil-ch or understancling-and ndeed as a paracligrrllf sttch-tnay lre con-trasted it h sciencen preciselyhi s espect. or n philosclplry,hestandardsfevidence,nt-erencent lsound ractice real l a partof what s debated.

Is the 'act hatan actionwould prttduce he bestbalance f happiness verunhappinessvidencebr i ts beingmorallyestimablc?oh nStuartMil l saysyes, mnlanuel ant says o. What s col l testedere s not.j tlstwhatparticularactions re mot'al ly stimableindeecl,here ri ightnot be l luchdisagreernentabout hat)bu t ratherwhat sortsol ' considerations'ouldbc naterial o con-sidering n action o be so .This s a question houtwhat o countas et' idence.If observednstancesf A haveal l been nstances f B, may we lcgitimatelyconcludehat nstancesf A ye t o be observed il l l ikewisc e nstancesf B' ?Mclstphilosophers f sciencehink thatwe may;but Karl Ptlpper ndhis schotllthink ha twe may not.This s a question boutwhat c) ottntas egiti trruterrference.Isa notion hat we areunable o explicate r analyzen tertl'ts f scnse-experiencesay, he notionof obl igation)o be dismissed s nonsensical '?rmay notions of this kind bc givena place-even a centralplace-in our ac-counts f th eworld'?Many so-cal leclerl lpiricists"av emade he crrnler lzrim,while many so-callecl rationalists"havemade he latter.This rnay be under-stcrod s a disagreementboutwhat constitutesormdpractice.

These re he sortsof dit'furenccs hich wc flnd rn philosophy, ut tot nscience. hi losophymay be thoughtof asa search i) r standards f evidence,inf'erencend soundpractice ha t might someday e accepted s fbrl l l ing afiamework or certain ealnlsof incluiry.When sucha fi'antework asbeena-chievecl, e speak f "science". nti l sucha tiamework s achieved, e Speakof .,phi losophy".This ma yexplain hecornmon entinlentha tphilctsophyev -

MIKAET-ARLSSON 93er gt:tsanywhere-simply, when t doesget somewhere, e switch our tenni-nokrgy.On theview helepresented,hi losophys the l


4/8

9 ,+ AF N I , { L ISR ITRNORSANNIBALSSONARExpianatory ciences concernedo explainwhy what happens,rappens.

It is concerned ith fianringcausalexplanations. xplanatory cience re -supposes bservational cience.On the other hand, t nriglrt bc saicl ha tobservat ionalcience ntic ipatesxplanatorycience;or n isolat ion-wi th-ou t he explanatory oa l n prospect-observationalcience ,ouldhardlybcrecognizables science.

F inal ly, echnical c ience onsistsn theappl icat ion f th e esul ts f 'ob -servational nd explanatory ciencc'o pri ictic;rl ncleitv'rlrs:o the clevelop-mentof technology, echnology ee dnot be scicnti tlc, y the way; t nraybcth eoftipring of practical now-howancl rperience.t shoulcl e thoughtol -as scienti tlcus t to the extent hat t dcpentls lpon he application f obser-val ionul nt lexplanatr l ryciencc.

A typical c ient i f ic l iscip l ineombines l l thrceof the nrodes. juste-scribed,ather han estrictingtself o any oneof thcnr.l

I l ILe t us no w say hat historf s tl tes)stetttatictntlcri ti tal seurclt.t 'brlt e urder-standing of pttstevents,actions and practices,selectedattd tretttetl vrith oview to their human signiJicance; searc'h yhic'lts grotnded in t he applic-ation of recognizetl tanclorclsJ'et,iclent:e,nJererrce ttl sountlpr.Lcti('e

Herea-eain e'givea characterizationhichno on ewouldhave o acccpt.History can be described itfbrently.But i t doesno t seenlunleasonahleodescribet as we have.Our descriptions rnodest nd secnrs t tlrst glance oclescribehe kind of activity n which many histol ians re engagecl. et uslook morecloselyat theelenrents f thedescription.

We se e mmediatelyha t hi scharacterizationf history e tclates rany fthe elementshat were ncluded n our characterizationf scicnce. istoly sdescribedas a systettuttic rtd critical search br understculzliiig, nd this-particularly s egardshe mplicationsnvolved n describing istoryas,r.),sl-enlatican dcritical-is to be undcrstoodn nore or less he samcwtryas be-fbre.We saidearlier hat n attributing hese 'eatures"ve made acit ref'erenceto a certain ommunity. n thepresent ase, ather han et'erringo the scien-ti flc community sa whole,we ref'er o a srnaller roupu,hichna y simplybedescribed s he communityof historians.We eaveopen or tl .re roment hequestionwhether his con.rmunitys to be viewed rs a part oi the scienti flccommunlty.

MIKAEL KARLSSON 9. 5wc havearsodescribectistory, ik e science, sgrcurttred tt rr cappric-cttiorrctJ' ecogttizeclstail(lartls of'evitrence, inlbrcttce utrr sourttl procric.e.While wc 'eaveopen th e possibi l i ty ha r thesestandards ifl 'er n cerrainrespects*,'n thestandardsppliedby thescientifrc ornrnLrnity,hey ar.c road_ly speaking tanriards.f.iusthe sarne ind.Taken ogerher it h th e systenl_aticantlcri ticar rra.acterha twe havearrributedo history,we ma y sa y ha tthese 'eatures uffrce cl characterize istory as a cri.sciprina.hether rt is ascienti l ic l isciprincs a niatter ha twe rvi i l go .n r. c.nsider.. rr epositiontaken icre s thatcvcry sciences a discipl ine. ut ha tno reverydiscipl inesnecessari ly science.t is perhaps bi t unnatural. crescribe.i"n." grobailyas discipl ine, ut rrere ee's Ii ttleha.n in d.ing so ;so n additior,u ,uy_lng, o. th e basisof trre 'eatures.iustrentioned,ha tphysics, hemistry, i ti_logyan dso on ar ediscipr ines.e wi ' arso pply hc er m iscip l inc, t a h ig-he r cvcl s, ro speak, o science s a whore.As a tl iscipl ine, isfory s ev -ident ly o he tl roughr i| as beingat rh e re 'e l of rhe ndivi ,r ,ot . i .nr in.d iscip l ines. justrent ioned,ndno tat he nrore lobal evel .Having o'ked at th eelernentsornrnono oul-chalacterizationf sciencc,

on th eo' e hand.an dhistrrry,rr the.rher-,ct us n.w turl to th especiar lc _mcnts nclucledn ou r description f history.we have haracterizedisro'yas c,,nce.neclvith'asl evetl ts,tctio,sancrpractice.s, erec'ted td treeted v,itr.t t t,iett.to their httntettsigttific.once.twottldarguably e to o narrow o restrict he dornarn f hist'ry to hurnan c-tions'since arious vents, uc has 'loods nd amines, ndpractices,uc hasslavery, av eha d hunri in ignificance nc r ave, ndecd, ec r r f.rcecrhumanbeings. act, ingly nd c. i lect ivery,n var ious ays.But uruch f whalhis_to.ians av e . tel l us concer'swhatparticular e.prehavecrone,br instancethatcaesar edhi s egions crosshe Rubicon,hu sdefying he Ro^an repub-Iicang.ve'n'rent; or that n rg64 Abr.ahaur incorn ssueda procramati.nabolishing raveryn th e Unitecr tates. r thatparisiansstormed he Basti i leon July 4rh, I 789.Although'on ou r account, istory s speciatyc.ncernedwith pastevents,actions nd practices, os tof these re n |aclol no concern o th ehistorian.It is only thoscwhose unran igniricances r.busr ha tbelong o th esubrect_matterot'history'Th e ideaof "humansignificance"s n. t clearly ixed; nthct, ne might oo kupon.it sconteste(r,',ong istoriansan damong.thcrsas well) ' on e ca ncra'i fy by example he kind nt,t.ring ha t s rneantn,r,"n_tioning hi sas a key 'eature f theevenfswhichconcer-nistory. n event, c-tlonor practice ashuman ignificancef it is consti tutive f or afl 'ectsentral


5/8

96 A FI V I , E L I S R I T RNORS H,CNNIB. \LSSONAI ielementsf human ocia l i l 'e uch s angua-ue,ul ture, o l i t ica l rg i in izut ion,economicorganization, lass structure, 'anri ly structure r ntorlesol ern-ployment;h is ist s oi course ot meant o be cornplete.hus,Napoleon'spresentinghe Enrpress osephinevith a -eolcl ecklace n 1807would nothave unian ignificancen thesense reanl ere;but his reconcil ingwith theEmperor lexanclerf Russian 1807would.

Thatsaid, owevcr,t seerusha thistorians ave luite l i l ' l 'elentdeas boutth e events, ctionsan d practicesha t havehuman significance. long tra-dition n history electsnainlyparticular ct sof powertirl ol i tical iguresashaving ignificance f this kind. Perhapshe grearesr artof writtenhistoriealwork tbcuses pon the struggles f such igures o -qain nd retainpower,and upon he acts hat hey perfirnnecln exercising hatpow'cr e.g. evyingtaxes,suppressingel ig ions,bui ld ing t leets, comnrissioning alendars,rnountingwarsand efbrnringaws).This selection oLrld, f course, e secnasmerely eflectinghe personalnterests 1'the ul k ol 'hrstorians.ut histor-ians ypical lyprctenclo be cktingmore han writing abrtut he n]a{tcrs ha ttbscinatehe n individually; hey say to us in e1't'eet,Loctk, l iusdare theevents, cl ionsan d practicesha t macle cl i f ' tblenceo hunran ocial i l 'e ntheir inre; hese re henratters orthwritingabout."Whcn historiansentrinsi lent aboutactionsan d practicesn the l ives of cornruonpeople, or in -stance-as he yhave ndeed on eunti l luite ecently-they retlect heir.juclg-ment hatsuchmatters reot' l i ttle consecluencer, n our ernrs,ac k"huntansignificance".

Historians ot only select br treatlnent vcntsof actionswhitsehunransignificances udged o be robust, ut they also nvestigate nd write abourthose ventsn sucha way as o bringout or explair.rheirhurnan ignificance.Thatseems o be he point () f researchinghe pirst n rhe historians' ay an dof writing history: o grasp,an d then o convey o an audience,he hunransignificancef sal ient as tevents.

Historyma y be descriptive,oncerningrselfwith u.'ftnl appened-tbr n-stance ith thequestionwhetherRichard II of England id,or di d not, nur-de r he ittleprincesn th eTower-or it nraybe atiological. oncerningtselfrvith rr,/i-yertain hingshappenccl-lbrexanrplew,ith he cluestion hy somanyOklahoma arrlersmigratedo Cali fornia n the 1920's.

MIKAEL KARLSSONI V

wc ca nno w as kwhctherhistory, swe havebrieflycharacterizedt, coulcr ea sciencen th esenselescribeclarl ier.In rhis egard,we need o conside' irst he questlonwhether he phenonr_en astudied y historyare aw-go'erned. hese hen.mena rc ,we sard, as tevents' ctl() 'sa' d practices; ut since t is pri 'rariry past rurnan cti()ns fwhichhistorians ee kunderstancl ing,e ma y fbcusou r attention po n her.rhere' f hu*arr actio.sar eno t law-g.verne


6/8

9 8 A F M , L I S I I I T A RNORS H A N N I B A L S S O N A I Tthought f thenatr.rralnd nitral ciencess wo separi l lc. tt tstrttctr 'rral lyndlnethodologioal lyimilar,systenls. y implication, he basic aw s tl l ' nl inclwouldbe counterpartsf suchprinciples s he aw of gravitation: lf hesamekind fiom the ogicalor methodological oint of view, bLrt pplying 0 very


7/8

IO O A [ . 'N { , 4 ] L I S R I TRNORS HANNIBALSSONAI{whethcr r no tRichard II of England turderedh( ) i ttleprinces n th eTtrwerwithout consiclering ha t reastlnsRichardwiluld havehacl or trtrrdcl ingthem.7

Furthermore,he humansignitici incelt an acti tln ie s ntl t only in it s ef -l 'ects ut n i ts underlyingntentions. or we assessucltsigni lrcanceot on-ly in terms9i an action's eading o eci lntttnicuin, c' rlt egrou'th l i ci ties, trindustrial ization,o th edecline f scholarship,tl thedisstl luti tln f the nucle-ar tamily, o urbanization nd th c l ike, but alstl n ternrsof it s beingsholt-sighted,l l-consiclerecl,tupid, ruel,clcver,genelous, eltlsh, 'orw6rd-lotlk-ing andso on .Bringingabout ctlntl tnicuin tftrough esign s acl i l l -erentor toi act,with a dift 'erent or tof significance,ha nbringingabtlutect'rtttl ttr ie'u -in throughstupidity;ancl he sourceoi the cl i ft 'erenceie s in the intentionswhichunderl iehe actions.

The necessaryoncernwith givingau acc()unt f intcnti tttis ivcs -t s cltreas clwh y historians av e raditionally etused clctlnsider s historical ut aanything ther hanwrittenaccounts,schewing.irr instunce.hc rttins, ravesites, onesancl rti t-acts hich so occLlpy rchaeoltlgists.he idea 'tlust ethatwritten extsar e he sources ut of which we ar cmost ikely tl be able tlread ntentions. rttman!'otherpointof I' iew, hi sdognta lfhisttlr iar.rss hardto comprehend.

In any case,what we havedescribcd er eas lie sortof undelstanding twhichhistoryairns s evidently f a very difi 'erent olt than ha tat which th esciences im .Ancl hi s s prohably he strtlngestcasonbr saying ha thisttlryis not,an d ndeed oe snot seck o be ,u science.

VThe sortof understandingt which histtl ;yairns acctlrdingo our account)has sometirnes ee ncallerj nanative"or "interpretive" -rnderstanding.

fh ehistorianmust el l a storyabouteventsn which theirhunran ignificanceasth ehistorian nderstandst) is brought o ight.The signiticance f an event-evenwhere hat event s an action-is not stlntethingha t t containswhollywithin tself,bu tdepends ot hupon ts nherent;ual i ties nc l po nour norl l l -ative eactionso thosequali ties. igniticance lependsot h upon he eventsand upon he nterpreter.he story gld by the historian lust herefbre m-body andc()nveyo an audicnce)a crta in ()rn lat ivctance-a persl )ccl lveon humansignitrcance hich s applied o theevents ha tar e reatcd i, This

N1IKAELARLSSON IO Ipefspectivc il l inflLrencche historian's ccourl i if what ia sbeen lone ndof why it wasdone,and t wil l alsoaft'ecthe wa y n whichan event s placedlnto a horizontal arrative esignedo reveal ot h ts rootsan d ts portent.It is clear iom whatha sbeen us t said hat history s thoroughly nd n-esci ipably oi lnative. hi smightbe hought o el l againsrts bcinga science,since t is often naintainedha tsciences (o r should e) vaiue-fiee". ut thatls no partof whatha sbeen naintaineclele. ndeeil ,we have lained ha tsci-cnce s glcluncledn normative tandardsespectetl nd appliedby the scien-ti flc corrrrnunity;hi s might be cal led he cotrsti tutivetorntti t,i t| of scrence.what we have lain'rcd er eabout istory s that t is alscterspecti t,alh,onn-ctti t 'e, .e . that nrakesvalue-.iuclgmentsith respect o it s sub.ject-nralter.(Thcse wo types of non'nativity av e otien heenconlbuncledogether ndiscnssionsoncerninghe "value-l ieedom"cl fscience.)ou l characterization1'science ic ino t specify hat t mustbe value-tl-celn Lh e attcrsense that t rnustal 'oid perspectival or.nrarivity).e recluirens,nd e-wrir.-(en,even about the sanle events or what nright be iclentifiedas .'ihe sameevents" ndersome hin description). 'hisneecl ot show hat historycannotbeob.iectiven a celtainsense. f course t cannotbe ob.jectiven th e sense fbeing ree of nonnativity.But it canob.jectively-eflect hat niay be saicl bouta glven etof past vents i-om givenpointof viewabout uman igniticance;and hehistorian an alsobe explicitaboutwhichpointof viewhe akes.

VITh econclusionslratwe have eached boutwhether istory an be a science,and about elatedmallers,are of coulse very tentativeones.we haveasketllargequestions nd givenoverly quick answers. ut .ou r discussion as no tmeant o answer ur argequestions nc e nd br all, br,rto showby exanrpleho wsuchquestions iustbe approachednd o ofl 'er onre bo d br thousht othosewh o would ike to pursue hese uestic-lnsor edeeply.8


8/8

1 0 2 A F N I , L I S R I T R N O R S H A N N I B A L S S O N A RAJtrmmdLI Gudnrundur eidar skswhcther t s no t hc case hat .whi le sorne ssues le contes(ed\ ' l t -

hin s. ' ience,herearen' t ls onrat ters hichar eset t led l t ( l ncont ruversi i r l .n a cer l l in wi ry,thishas o be ru e n order br sciencco getanywhcrc. Lan ygivcnuror t lcnt ,helo us to bca arge ody of uncontestet lacts nd pr inciplesn order o nrake cient i l i c ct iv i typossible.Bu t I think hr t thcrc s i t t le n sciencehat s not n pnnciple Lrbiecto ( lucsl iou.\ 'hen r 'e-volut ions" ccuru' i thin onc or another eal rnof sciencc-per l taps onrcthing s bls ie ir smechanics-pnnciples which havebeenuncontested, nd ndeed akcn as tbLrndational, real l at oncepu t nf o ser ious lLrest ionnd pe|haps ventual lyejected.

2 H.re, Gudnrundurlc idar asks: lf thc c lonrain f scienccs law-governed henonrena,lr cquest ion r ises hether bser lat ionalc iences genuine cience n reasoning inr i l i r ro t l r r tu 'hich oLr pply o histor1, . "l1 'Li thuanianrunslator . gl eWi t t ig \ {arcinkcvic iLr tc,nalesth esame oint ,al thoLrghit h a t l i f lercnt mphasis. he lnt ls ha t undel ralue bservl t i r rn-al science, nd sinr i lar ly i story, ince don' t secnr o hcr o recognize ct iv i tyas scient i l i cunt i l he inrccor les o e. rplain l rephenorr renay' shou, ing r)$' hey al l r rnder arvs. t i sinrportant o nlakeonc point here, l'hieh anrsure hat ncithcrof rny critics nrisuuclcrstan tls.I am not of the opinion hat al l discipl ines ugl t t o b e scicnces, r woLr ld e bet tel f thcyl lr 'rz scicnces. hc readcr hi;ultlunderstand hat I do not use he terfll "scicnce" lr.s n horr-or i f i c .But o ur n o heactual oint aised y Cudrnundurnd Egle, think n rct rdspecthx tnry tcxt is not clearenough on fhe point inriuired about. What I want to say about obser-vat ional c iences thatwhat l low'sLr so undcrslant lt as scicnce s hat 4 undelst rndl.aspar tof a arger ntelpr ise,nother al tof rvhich s hebusinessfexplanat ion.'hat sonrcorrethrows bal l hrough hoop s underslood s r r 'or l r rgr.grrrr lhe n t is par tof a argcr anre.l f the "eanrc"ofscicncehrrdncverdeleloped, eople ror : l , ldoubt less t i l Jbc observing,descr ibing,nd organiz inghei rdescr ipt ions;ut his vould otbc observat ionalf( u, i ( , rsthat s understood he n hese ct iv i t ies elong o the arger anre. t nray ikervise e saidthat heacl iv i ty fol fer ingexplanet ions'ould inr i lar iy ol counlasexplanatuy cience n-Iess he explanationswere tied in a cenain rvay to observational Videncc.Pre-scientitjccosrnology ivesus a good exanrple f this. The clivision ol'fel betweenoltsen,utiotruL..r-pluuulon,and.erhni .ulsciencc ests n facton dis l inct ions fanalysrs: nc s analyzing rnintegrated ctivity, ather handescr-ibingist inctunitswhich can bc assenrblednto that ac-t i v i ty. fbar ha t hi sbr ief esponseloesn' t uccessf i r l l ynswer hc cr i t i c isnrs,. rnt l despai rof doin-s hat n a short spaca. hope. however, hat what I slv here wi)l help he rei lddr ograsp l o rec l ear l y hu t u r r s r y i ng u qc tJI l r r r y nr i n ex t .3 This deflnitiondiff'ers lightly fronr hat given n the earlier-publ ished crsionsof rhispaper.in responseo an observat ionrade ry BarbaraB. Nclsonconcerning ! )c ial i story.Cor-responding hanges ave beennrade n the cxt that fbllows.

4 Mi l l 's nrain iscussionf thesel iscipl iness o be ound n hisgrcatwork.A S-r', i reril lo3-iL ,Rt t tktLinut i t 'enr l nduct iye,he j rstedi t ionofwhich waspubl ishcdn l8. l -1. efelencchere s madenlainly to Book 6 of this work, "On the Logic of the vtoralSciences".5 See, n particular, vlichaelScriven, TrLrisnrs s the Grountls or Histolical Explanations";in Patrick Gardiner,ecl.Thertrie:; J History Clencoe, llinois: The Flcc Pless,1959), pp.113-.+75.6 S"e ,r,y article, Defeating he InferenccFronr Ceneral o ParticularNornrs"; Rutio uris 8:3(1995) , p 2 l l - 286 .7 GudmundurHeidar emarkshere hat "anticipates" as a double meaning. t nright nrean Ithatobservational cience recedes xplanatory ciencd n tirr)d. r (2) that obserr':(ional ci-

NI IKAEL KARLSSON IO:1el lce s a logical lynecessaryremiseor explanatory cience. he nhe asks ,cloesn, t .aturalscience i l ler frortthistory o the extent ha t u the ornrer t woul i lbe possihleo dcscrrbet l tc pl tent l t r tenar ior o explaining heni vhi le n l . r i s toryt u,ouldbe di t f i cul t o descr . rbeeve' ts indcpondent lyf possible xplanat ionsf thosee'entsr , ,Beginningwith , .ant ic ip-at ion" , hat l he ogicalpoint rore n rnind ha n he enlpor i . l rne . u,as hi r ik inghat . .g _icul ly speaking, t beconres ppr.priate o orler an erpla'ation of wl.rat appens nly afierha'ing fbr.red a warlanted clea f*'hat rrappcns. ou,e'er, Things are nor actuailys. sinrple.hou'e'cr . br e'en n natural c ience.hc expranat ians,e r.arreo erplainwhai happenss'bscqre. r ly nfb. ' r t iur deas bout ,hat rappens.n otherwords, he quest ion f what iap_pens s no'cr entirely separatc ronr hecluestion f why the hings hat iappen, appen. t i l l ,at hestace l ' f ranl ing xplanat ions\ 'L ' )ust av e nived or thc rorncntat an r ie, ruf wt ratir is that *'e are ainring o explain: his s an deaabout vhathappens r what has happeneo.As to the te,rpor;li question, think that norrrrallyobservation nd descripti., proc-eednlandern ir h he ef lbn to exprain. e a'e co.srant ry ha' ,eingan dhopefui lynrpro\ ing) urdescl ipt ive tnderstandingf things,an d rhis nreans constant c dct jni t iono[ ou r cx _planalory ff i r. ts. rmi lar ly, e ar e lore or ess onstant rye-explaininghopefurryn a oet_tel laslt ion)hings hat we haveah'earl),lpl l ipgd. ThLrs.irere s no orcial l tenrporal rr.ticr.rlescribitr-rrnd explaining,even f there s a logicalonc.The t l i l 'ference etweennaturalscr-encca* d histury ccordingo nly accornt ie s n the ype ofexplanat ion ought . gr e hal_lcngushi s Sh earst teshat hehistor iar ran asu,el lbe ntercstetjn nonrologic-al. rpianar io, ras hc rat t l ral c iet t t i s t .hc hinks ha t ny vicw ofthe hisror ian s nte, .estei inl y n interp-rct ive rderstandings to o r inr i ted.n fact , do uot deny l iat hehistor ian, . , royc" k nu, , ro-Itlgicalexplanations s well as nterpretive nes.althouglrhat s perlraps ot clear rorrr rrytdxt chal i tcter ist i cal ly 'hoLrgh,think ha thistor ians av e ought nterpret iverplernat ionsralher han no'rologicarones;and sonrehisto'ianshavede'ied the appropriatenessof ono-losicalexplanat ionsn histol t , . t at reast eernsfue r rat ornoro ca rexpranat ions char_actel 'ist icf thc argcf part llwltat I woLrld ike to call "science";but f sonreone al.]tso usethis wortl diftercntly, hi ivcno obiection,provided hat what s meant s clearand the strar-cg 1 or us r r r vhi s : r bc ls l l t r r t r i l r a t r ng .

Gudnruni lurHeidi, askswlrether oughtnot to have arkecimorc aboutpr()gre,\s'connec-t i t>n i th lhescieuces. e opines ha t rr e de aofscience s nornral ly ssociatedit h the,d-ea of lhe progress l 'knowlcdge r unr lerstanding.agree ha tsuch s thecase.C)ur urrcnrideasof scicnce re very iuch infrucnced y |9th ceniury hought, n which the dea of prr-gfess was cxtrenrelvstrong and central. agree hat this aspeut s largely left out of rrrydiscussionnd hat r r : ight .nLleerJ.av esai t r rore bout i t . I think, r-r,eu"., ha ( t is rnl -porl.ult o un(lerstandhat t would be a rristake o (lerjne ciencen ternrsof the p.ogress I,.ndcrsta.drrg. MLrch f scicnce onsisrs f nraking alse t.rrts nd being ed nto bl indal _fel 's .Scient i l i cnt l t r i l y s not always tu(es. t l i t l : ut unsuccessfulc i . 'nces no less cienccthan he activity that eads o progressn knowledgeand ulderstanding.

can history be a science?

Documents