According to one large family of views, scientific explanations explain a phenomenon (such as an event or a regularity) by subsuming it under a general representation, model, prototype, or schema (see Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441; Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press; Darden (2006); Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific (...) explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 331–496). New York: Free Press; Kitcher (1989); Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25). My concern is with the minimal suggestion that an adequate philosophical theory of scientific explanation can limit its attention to the format or structure with which theories are represented. The representational subsumption view is a plausible hypothesis about the psychology of understanding. It is also a plausible claim about how scientists present their knowledge to the world. However, one cannot address the central questions for a philosophical theory of scientific explanation without turning one’s attention from the structure of representations to the basic commitments about the worldly structures that plausibly count as explanatory. A philosophical theory of scientific explanation should achieve two goals. The first is explanatory demarcation. It should show how explanation relates with other scientific achievements, such as control, description, measurement, prediction, and taxonomy. The second is explanatory normativity. It should say when putative explanations succeed and fail. One cannot achieve these goals without undertaking commitments about the kinds of ontic structures that plausibly count as explanatory. Representations convey explanatory information about a phenomenon when and only when they describe the ontic explanations for those phenomena. (shrink)

Whether, and in what sense, research in phenomenology and phenomenological psychopathology has—in addition to its descriptive and hermeneutic value—explanatory power is somewhat controversial. This paper shows why it is legitimate to recognize such explanatory power. To this end, the paper analyzes two central concerns underlying the debate about explanation in phenomenology: (a) the warning against reductionism, which is implicit in a conception of causal explanation exclusively based on models of natural/physical causation; and (b) the warning against top-down generalizations, which neglect (...) the specificity of the individual. While acknowledging that these two caveats express serious concerns regarding the debate on explanatory models, I show that phenomenology has the resources to respond to them. These can be found in analyses of different types of causation relating to different regions of reality and in the structure of explanatory models based on exemplarity. On the basis of these analyses, I defend a pluralist account vis-à-vis explanatory models. (shrink)

The archival turn in 19th-century historical scholarship – that is, the growing tendency among 19th-century historians to equate professional historical studies with scholarship based on archival research – not only affected the profession’s epistemological assumptions and day-to-day working manners, but also changed the persona of the historian. Archival research required the cultivation and exercise of such dispositions, virtues, or character traits as carefulness, meticulousness, diligence and industry. This article shows that a growing significance attached to these qualities made the archival (...) turn increasingly contested. As the case of the German-Austrian historian Theodor von Sickel and his critics shows, it was not the necessity of archival research as such on which historians in late 19th-century Europe came to hold different views. Sickel’s critics were rather concerned about the potentially detrimental effects that the increasingly philological ethos of archival studies could have on the historian’s character. What was primarily at stake in late 19th-century debates on the gains and losses of increased commitments to archival study was the persona of the historian – his character traits, his dispositions and the virtues and skills in which he excelled. (shrink)

A sharp distinction between the notions of explanation and understanding is more than relevant for contemporary philosophy. However, it is difficult to understand the current state and prospects of this terminological distinction without considering its origins. The author finds such origins in the field of philosophy and methodology of science of the nineteenth century. One cannot grasp the meaning of explanation and understanding in philosophy without considering the ordinary meanings since both notions are also actively used in the ordinary language. (...) Hence, this paper has a twofold aim. Firstly, it investigates the meaning of explanation and understanding in everyday use. Secondly, it considers the origin of the distinction between the notions in philosophy. It is proven that the origin of the explanation in philosophy can be seen in Auguste Comte’s philosophy of science, namely in the first volume of The Course in Positive Philosophy published in 1830. There Comte introduces the notion of explanation in the context of the law of three stages, as well as the notion of positive explanation which makes positive knowledge or science different from the previous stages of knowledge. As for the origin of understanding in philosophy, it is found in Droysen’s philosophy of history, namely in The Outline of the Principles of History, where Droysen makes a distinction between understanding, which is used in history, and explanation that was discussed by Comte. Consequently, explanation and understanding, after being introduced to philosophy by Comte and Droysen, become the central notions of Dilthey’s well-known methodological distinction between natural sciences and humanities. Manuscript received 16.02.2020. (shrink)

Historians in the 19th-century were not the first to discover the importance of source materials kept in archival depositories. More than their predecessors, however, scholars working in the historical discipline that the 19th century saw emerge tended to equate professional historical knowledge with knowledge based on primary source research, that is, practically speaking, on knowledge gained from source material that was usually kept in archives. While previous scholarship had paid ample attention to the methods that 19th-century historians employed for the (...) study of such archival material, to the epistemologies they developed in tandem with these methods and to the institutions they created for the study of archival records, this special issue explores the influence that archives, in a classic, institutional sense, exerted on the practices of 19th-century historiography. How did the archival turn affect historians’ working manners? How contested was this archival research imperative, with its underlying autopsy principle? And how did it spread geographically, in and outside Europe? (shrink)

Пояснення і розуміння традиційно вважають методами, які властиві різним галузям наукового пізнання – природознавству та гуманітаристиці відповідно. Натомість у межах цієї статті обидва – пояснення і розуміння – розглянуто як методи гуманітарного пізнання. А саме, звернуто увагу на функціонування пояснення і розуміння як в історії загалом, так і в рамках такого специфічного різновиду історичного пізнання, як біографія. Звернення до біографічного виміру допомагає унаочнити специфіку пояснення і розуміння та розширити уявлення щодо їх застосування в гуманітарних науках. У першій частині статті автор (...) аналізує функціонування пояснення і розуміння в історичному пізнанні загалом. Зокрема, розглянуто каузальне пояснення (пояснювальний нарис за Карлом Гемпелем) та раціональне пояснення (історія ідей за Марком Бевіром), а також розглянуто, як вони співвідносяться із герменевтичними уявленнями щодо розуміння. У другій частині статті висвітлено, як функціонує пояснення і розуміння в біографічних дослідженнях. Проаналізовано біографічне розуміння за Тільманом Габермасом та Неше Гатібоглу, а також випадки каузального та раціонального пояснення у біографічних розвідках. Зокрема показано, що каузальне пояснення не є самостійним поняттям, хоча його й наводять у біографії як пояснювальний нарис. Зауважено, що раціональне пояснення також використовують у біографічних реконструкціях із метою прояснення впливу конкретних подій на переконання особистостей. Аналізуючи залучені матеріали, автор статті демонструє своєрідність пояснення і розуміння в біографії порівняно з їх застосуванням в історичному пізнанні загалом. (shrink)

In the methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP) there are important features on the problem of prediction, especially regarding novel facts. In his approach, Imre Lakatos proposed three different levels on prediction: aim, process, and assessment. Chapter 5 pays attention to the characterization of prediction in the methodology of research programs. Thus, it takes into account several features: (1) its pragmatic characterization, (2) the logical perspective as a proposition, (3) the epistemological component, (4) its role in the appraisal of research (...) programs, and (5) its place as a value for scientific research. -/- The notion of “novel facts” is highly relevant in his conception, where several aspects are involved: the directions of novel facts, the different kinds of novelty, and the transition from six possible options of “novel facts” to four choices. Thereafter, the prediction of novel facts as the criterion of appraisal is considered. On the one hand, this requires analyzing the theoretical, empirical, and heuristic possibilities of appraisal; and, on the other, whether there is an overemphasis on the role of prediction in methodology of scientific research programs. As a consequence, there is an analysis of Lakatos’ criterion of appraisal in MSRP and economics. (shrink)

This research offers a new perspective by reframing the positivist-interpretive debate as a distinction between the functional outcomes of research: explanation and understanding. Based on an older and well-established literature in philosophy, this distinction can reinvigorate important differences in research outcomes that have been lost. Understanding or “subjective meaning” is connected to the intentionality, thoughts, and motivations of the human subjects under study. From this perspective, understanding is the type of knowledge gained from determining the meanings, categories, and symbols humans (...) attach to actions, knowledge, and systems. In contrast, explanation is achieved by subsuming individual instantiations of the phenomenon under broad general laws, or identifying causal mechanisms that support antecedent-consequent pairs. Researchers can proactively use the understanding-explanation distinction as a heuristic to create new lines of research questions based on what has not been explained or understood rather than on which ontology or methodology has not been used. (shrink)

The first part of this essay is basically historical. It introduces the explanation–understanding divide, focusing in particular on the general–unique distinction. The second part is more philosophical and it presents two different claims on action. In the first place, I will try to say what it means to understand an action. Secondly, we will focus on the explanation of action as it is seen in some explanatory sciences. I will try to argue that in some cases these sciences commit what (...) I call an “external contradiction”. (shrink)

Historicismo y Marxismo. El Historicismo, Ludovico Geymonat y la disputa en torno al Marxismo como método o concepción de mundo.