Danto - The Problem of General Laws

7/27/2019 Danto - The Problem of General Laws

1/17

x

H S OR AL EXPLANA N:HE PROBLEM O ENERAL LAWS

Towards th nd of chV n cons d r ng th poss b l t that on wa od st ngu sh ng b tw n pla n' ands gn cant narrat v s ght b thatth latt r but not th for r o r xplanat ons of what happ n dcont nd d that a narrat v alr ad s n th natur of th cas amof

xplanat on.th s chapt r and th n xt pr pos to d f nd th s v wTo b g n w th t s s a pla n fact that n a good an cas s and u

h s co tt d to so g n ral stor cal th or such as Marx sh stor an would spontan ousl o r us a narrat v wh w ask h

xpla foru a c rta n occurr nc and that h s lf wh n h w shto f d an xplanat on of an occurr nc , w ll und rtak o asc ta n w

w so t s call thstor ' - an ng roughl th v nts wh ch l adup to th v nt n qu st on. But th s s not u qu l th cas w hans f so on fo nstanc has an uto b l acc d nt and

aft rwards to xpla n wh or to xpla n how) t happ n d th ansnaturall xp ct d would b a narrat v . hus th r s so ust

ncl nat on to sa that h stor cal xplanat ons ar s pl narrat vns st that th s s all that xplanat on' s tak n to an n h sto

cont xts. S nc a narrat v s s not r l to xpla n an occurrbut to t ll what happ n d ov r a str tch of t th r s aga an nc

t on to sa that t ll ng what happ n d and xpla n ng what happ nar obs wh ch ar don s ultan ousl that n so far as a narratxpla ns t also t lls pr c s l hat happ n d and that n so far as

pr c s l what happ n d t also and at th sa t xpla ns.th swa narrat v d sc pt on and h s o cal xplanat on ar of a p

Y t t a b l g t at l ob ct d that th r s no contrad ct onco pla nt that on knows what happ n d though on cannotxp /what happ n d G n rall th s w ll an onl that on k ows that r a v nt n a s qu nc of v nts has tak n plac but that on

gnorancof th pr c s s qu nc of v nts t t r nat sApol c o cfo xa pl w on to pl to h s qu st on What happ n d?

0


2/17

An lytic l Philo ophy of Hi torys y ng that An ccid nt took p c ight corr ct y say th t hkn "this but that this is not th What happ n d' h is i t r st d n H U

o kno th story of th ccid t; h ants t on to kno hh pp n d nd hy it happ n d. h fo o ing ccou t ou d nor ab tak n to satisfy both d ands (so f r as it is corr ct h r to sp k of l 'jd nds for y cl i is that th s ar o ly di r nt ys of king t

med nd) :The car was driving East behind a truck; the truck veered left; the driver oft ,car thought the tr ck was making a ft tu and proceeded to pass on the rigtbut the truck then sharp y v ered to th right for it had gone eft to mak1d cu t right turn nto an inter ct on which th driver of car h


3/17


4/17

lyt c l Ph lo o hy H tounderstanding' or, again to se h amiliar G rman wordV s hence r is absolu ly als is orians, ass i n is s, do o

explain i explain is n ers ood in h sens claim d o be appropriatto heN r is ha her, his orians nders and' he uniq e a]

ever d plica ed episodes in which re h an agen s have engagdo n the ages3, hen, is trivially r e His orians' explana ions do noinclude laws or he simple reaso hat her are no his orical explanations The reason we do not d general laws men ioned in his ory bookis because there are no explana ions in he s ricr i hs s o rm, o b o d th r T s is o a d c , ow r, and demand that historians explain is logically o mis nders and the nature o their discipline, as well as me aphysically to misunderstand he na ure oh man beings and the importan di erences be we n h m and othsorts o be ngs

t must in some measure have be n in response to he sor s o vie s

ro ghly sketched und r hat Hempel wro e his celebra ed paper0

the unc ion o general laws in history For One o the views subscribeto by theLogi Em iri ischool o which empel was an o ts andinglactive and creative member was hei y of Ci m hodthe vie ,namely that dierencesreRec ed as di erenc s in the scien i c r presentation o the propert sand behaviour in he subjec ma er and hat scienti c m thod sinvariant as to subject S rictly speaking, Hemp l was not conc rn d indirect way with phenomen , bu consist n wi h he way in which hLogical mpiricists viewed h ir job wi h he language sci n is s useto describe phenomena Now di erences in subject matter will indeedbe reRec ed in science as a dier nceprecisely, as di erences in the so call d non logical' vocabulary o hisscience or hat but this in no way b ars on the logical s ruc re o scienceswh ch employ di erent non logical vocabularies There was, i is truetendency to regard the basic vocabulary o any sci nce as explicitlde able by means o o s r io erms or as reducible o sen ncesonly mak ng use o observational vocabulary a programme o analysiswhich would oppose the idealis 's c( i6 1 that human behaviour canonly be unders ood in the ligh o intrinsically observable events

owever he hesis o physicalism n ed not be pres ppos d by the thesis

Th Probl o G n r l L wo the ity o scienti c method, and one o the hings e pel m ashow was that explanation in par ic lar has xac ly the sam struwhether it has to do with human or non human behavio radditiono co rse he meant to show hat we can and do explain humanbehaviour

To isome phenomenon, as Hempel saw it, is o per orm someoperation on a s ( he d mwhich describes he phenomenon in question Hempel's view was tha this operation consis s d d i ghis sen ence ro some se o premisses to be taken as adeqgrounds or he explanandum (i we do no have adequate grounds hcan w be said to have explained?) The s t o premisses he rmed the shall term his he D d io io hough it is plain hatthe logical eature o ded cibility rom premisses cannot be regardedmore han a necessary condition or explanations even i we gran thaadequate explana ion mus be represe table as a d duc ion For

surely always possible to nd premiss s ro which he explanandmay be deduced, tho gh no one would regard this as an ioat allNever heless, rom he Deduc ion Assumption oge her wi h oanalytical no ion o xplanatory adeq acy we may, think elicremainder o empel's analysis by m ans o a sor o ranscendearg ment

(i) The explanandum s nce i describes a particular occ rrenc isgu ar in orm Let it be he sentenceNow e D d c ion sumptionalone tells s very lit le about th ormal composition o he premis

w ar o a a a s orG c a , a r are, hey (by def ition) ca ot be consis ntly tr whiles als . B tso many propositions migh sa is y is condi ionis a ded ctiveconsequence o its l o i s own do ble n gation, o any co cwhichit i sel is a conjunc e c No o e wo ld r gard hese deductexplanatory however and wi hout nsnarling o rselv s in logicaniceties let us suppose tha w or inarily explain an v n wi h rence t its condi ions so hat one o he pr misses us cerdescribe some cond tion or he ev n whichdescribes and thispremiss must th n be distinct in orm rom Since he condition i s condition, it too, demands a singular proposition to express it

et his proposi ion bF


5/17

An lyt l Ph lo o hy of H t y( )ut of course,F in no sen e deductivel entails G So if t C

prem sses consisted u iquel of F , t e Deduction Assu pt on would violated But notice t at must express a cond tion su cient for toccurrence desc ibed wit G , for ot erwise mig t e t ue and Gfalse, and we would t en not av an ad quate exp anation of w Gis true If t e event mig t not ave occur ed even t oug t conditio

eld, t e olding of t e condition ails to explain w itoccu , ande explanation is t us inadequate. So we need to specif t at t e con

dition is a su cient condition, and b def ition, to sa t at F is a sufcient condition for G is to assert t at G .But t isconditional sen

tence toget er wit reall does ield G as a deductive consequence(iii) Let us imagine a condition disce ible from F , except t at

w en F olds, G does not, t oug en F olds, so does G ot errds, suppos ng t at and are al k , and t at t e condition and F

are alike, ut w en F , G ' is fa e, t oug w en F , G is true And

for t e sake of simplicit , let us suppose t at ever thing lse is t e sameell, if we do suppose t at, t en eit er and are not indiscerni le,or else is no a su cient conditio for G . T at is to sa , less, foever G eve t ng els e g t e same t enis not asu cient condition fo G . To suppose t at w do ave a su cientcondition, t en, s to com t oneself to t g ne al proposition t atunder im lar ci cumstances, t e same t i gs wil appen w en t e samcondi ions old And indeed, if t is gene al p oposition is false, t en wedon' ve a su ci n condition and if we don t av t at, w don t

ve an explanation Plainl , t en, ou e planation reall equirest is general co ditional sentenc et t is b ( ) (F: G ) And since wecaneas l get G from t is a well-known ule of fe enc , tlatte is not ind pendent of t e fo me , andcanb dropped as one of t epre sses

(iv) T e explanans, t e , minimall consists of(at least) two p emisses, and( ( G ) ut of cou se, t e empi ical te p etation of t elatter is as a n r l l, and t e empi ical inte p etation of t e fo me isas an n t l on onHence, to (empirical ) expla n an event is to connectt t event wit a condition, and bv mea s of a law, w ic is w at

Hempel as represented T s satiss otat e Deduction Assumptionand our pre-anal ical notions08

Th P obl o G n l sNotice t at w at w ave explicat d er is t e concept of aadequ t

explanation But is an inadequate xplanatio eall an explanation at af it is not, an mo e t an a false fac is a face, we need not qualif

t m explanation' wit adequate an more t an we need qualif tte mface' wit true' And we w ll t us ave explicated, b eans of t anscendental argum nt, t concept of explanation

Hempeland Oppen eimspeci ed a va ietof furt e considerations, s ntactical and seman tical ut t ere is little point listing t ee e, and I s all m l indicate t e manner in w ic t ei anal sis

appli d b Hempel to storTo g wit , assum ng e ad givenanexplication of t e concept o

c ntexplanation it was plain t at science could give explanations ofs ngl events iv n t at no pair of events belong to all t e sam clasit follows t at ve vent is di e ent in some deg ee from eveot e ,w ile from t e fact t at an pai of events s a e at least on prope tfollows t at no eventis ique t is r ga d t ere is no room for dist guis ing isto f om t e natu al sciences on t e g ound t att eform deals wit single vents, fo so do s science; no on t e g out at it deals wit unique events, fo t e e a e none. But it mig t bo jected t at suc prope ties as a given isto ical event ma s a e wot er ev nts a e t ivial o un nte esting, t at t e e is a sense i w

isto ical events ar undenia l unique How t n mig t t e bcov ed gen al laws of t so t exacted b Hempel's anal sis Wt e fact is t at istorians t emselv s, w n t e unde tak to explaevents, w il t e do not precisel mention an laws, nonet elesstacitl presuppose t eir e stence, t eir explanations accord ngl beint e natu e of ela o ate ent memes On t eot e and, and t is ispartof t e re ativ backwardness of some of t e social sciences, t e fa

emains t at suc laws as mig t eimplicit and p esupposed ca not beexplicitl stated in w oll exceptiona l fo m So, st ictl speakinwe mean b explanation', ex ibiting an explanandum as a deductiveconsequence of an explanans containing scient call acce ta le genelaws,t en, of cou se, isf ls But we ma restateI We ma sat at t e explanations istorians o e are reall not explanations as suc

but a e, Hempel's p ase, explanation sketc es'.Plac s are, so to spea ,marked o w ere t e a propriate general law w ic is presupposed,09


6/17

Analy ical Philo ophy of oll n t e be nserted convert ng the sketch nto a lly sat s a to

explanat on Such a ske ch

consis s of a mo o ss vag in ica ion of th aws and n tia cond onco s as van , an n s ' ing out in o to tu n into a f

g x ana onI

Along these l nes then He pel argues thats rueI) s tr e ereplace expla n' h ske ch explana ons for'; and ( ) s true f ereal hat e ar talk n abou o sk hh ch do noti c dgeneral la s but h ch presuppos he

The neral anal s s here exh b ed s apparentl due or g nall to rofessor arl opp r 2 and can be sa d to enjo a de accep ance amongstemp r c s ph losophers as ll as amongs cer a n avant garde h s or ans

am correct n sa ng that Hemp l's pos t on as a d rec rebu al of ( ) he rema n n o en ral pos ons have t p call b en occup edb ph losophers concerned to ebu(B n Hemp l s formulat on n th ssense Hempel's anal s s has de erm n d the complex on of h subsequent h s or of th problem aren h t call t ould b a neatproblem to tr o expla n along Hempel an l nes the subsequent state of ph losoph cal d scuss on h ch h s o n anal s s clearl de erm ned Butl t us no turn o he mod ra e and then the rad cal cr t c sm of (B).

( Cer a nl hat t p call s sought for n h stor cal explanat onsare the causes of an even and cer a nl to asser that some h ng K causedan eventE s o comm t oneself to he ex st nce of some general la to thee ec ha K l ke events cause E l ke ven s So much s covered b thesenseof relevance den ed as op ra ve n m earl er example n so faras e nd cat causes or supposed caus s of an event e are clearl do ngsome h ng h ch conforms to Hemp l's not on of an explana on sketchBu hav an r gh to suppose hat the sketch n ques on requ res onlexpl c t c ta on of th la appealed to n order to qual f as a full edgedexplanat on or he la ma as man have po nted out be a probab l tla We ma kno that E occurred and hat K occurred and regard t asl kel that K causedE on he grounds hat frequentl K andE l keeventsare jo ned But suppose there are kno n cases here an E l ke event has

not been preceded b a K l ke event thoughth ma n the connect onholds romsent nce descr b n K e cannot by appeal to su h a

Th P obl of G n al awprobab l ty la str ctly d d ca sentence descr b ngWe o nots r ctl spea ng have adequate ro ds forthe explanandumE 'for t s no log call poss ble for th s sentence to be false andK ',as ell as the probab l ty la to be true n th s sense e ou d thhave expla ned E even f e made the la expl c t and t ma verbe the case that the onl la s presupposed n h stor cal explanat o

of th s nd so that e cannot by appeal to these ever succeed pla n ng events Mean h le f there s some other la of str c lyval d ty the fact s that e do not kno t and can hardl be sa dobv ous sense to have presupposed t and at an rate t could nla connect ng K thE n as much as b h pothes s they are cononly b a probab l t la So a d erent n t al cond t on ouq red from the one e refer to and accord n ly ours cannot be regaan longer as a sketch for the f al explanat on need ng onl to belled

n Rather t ould have to be scrapped On the other hand s mpl be that probab l y la s are ul ma e n h ch case noth

s to be hoped for and the ll ng n st ll does not eld an explanast pulated Hempel an sense But th s ma be the case not mereh stor and n ord nary l fe but n sc ence as ell and e shoulobl ged to conclude that per aps ne ther pla n men nor h s or asc ent sts have v rsucceeded n expla n ng an phenomena at all t becomes a quest on as to hether e have fa led so ab small nexplanatory act v t es or he her the cr ter a for an explanatbecome n Hempel's anal s s so exal ed as never to be sa s ethe deduc b l ty assumpt on ought to be abandoned But then so

e abandon e abandon as ell the grounds for Hempel s anal s s h ch ver nearly follo s as outl ned as a logsequence of th s assumpt on A closer look m ght be taken as ell at sof the ord expla n' Surely n one sense and perhaps n the sense of h s term h stor ans pla men and sc ent s s succe

ng th n s They make clear' they produce understand ng' th ngs and even s h ch before ere dark and not understood Bu

n th s sense s unquest onably true H stor ans furn sh unders athe make clear to us hy th ngs came about as the d d Hempel f

ous but sd rected n h s semant cal and s ntact cal st pulatoverlooked the central r gm icd mens on of the not on of expla n ng


7/17


8/17

An lytic l Philo ophy Hi torydestroying what he t rms the Covering a Mod l' encourages me tolocate h m here. 1

Whether or not n any ord ary sense of the rd' storians uselaws is f course a factual question pen to empirical investigationand th s as ray realizes is not the kind of question that is being raisedThe questi n is even suppos ng they did use la s hether their use f

aws is in any ay a necessary c n tionf r any explanation they ghtgive and hether their use of la s ould c nstitute a su cient conditionf r an explanati n. These questi ns ray ans ers negatively. Hisargument rests up n the presumed psych logical fact that an historianmay reas nably stick by an explanati n he has given ithout feel nghimself t be c mmitted to the ndependent truth f any la hichmightbe pr p sed as covering the event s that in some loosely s eci eds ns f entailment no la isn il dby h s explanati n. But aga , andf rr ughly c mparable reasons an h storian might accept a given law

as independ ntly true and even as c vering an event in question ith utregarding it as explaining th event it may in fact c v r ! o illustrate therst case: explain ng the fact that Louis XIV died n pular by sh ing

that he pursu d p lici s d trimental to French nati nal interests thehist rian may f d it di cult ind ed t say what la it is hich sanctionsthisex lanati n and may challenge ith im unity any logician hoargues that th remusbe a la , t state hat the la is. h xplanationdoes n t enta a law in any bvi us ay and for all that th storian isc r inthat he has correctly x lain d th fact T illustrate the sec ndcase c ncerned to explain the fact that Sir Brian uke as bow leggedan hist rian would ( ray claims) f d it un nlightening re a coll agueto int out that all medieval knights were b w legged.

f we reject the so called C vering Law M d l of hist rical ex lanati n, hat model shal ad pt? ray sugg sts wit many r servations

hat he sp aks of as a C ntinu us S r s M el 2 we explain a grossevent by sundering it into a series of sub vents unt we have reachedsome set f sub events ich are just underst od events at which

do ur hats', and of hich no explanati n is wanted or needeY tray hesitates t sponsor this model ith any markedsiasm rst

because there are i terna di culties but sec nd y because\there is noreas n to assume that th ris any n m del hich very accepted1

Th Probl of G n r l wnstance of storica explanati n c nfor s to. Historians may

explanati ns f i ely di ring f rms and ray s pr graudge fr m the rest f his b k as ell as his subsequent publicati 1has

been to o er a phenomen l gy so t speak of hist rical ex laL ke Scriven mean hile, ray is insistent u n th pragmatic of explanations xplanati n is al ays relat ve to a c ntext anlevel of knowledge already p ssessed

11am right in com itting ray to the absolutely falsity f( ) andtheabs lute truth f( ), t gether ith his critical arguments e can sereason he ould give f r the truth of (3), quite in n ently ofevidencein supp rt of t n m ght r duc fr m a scrutiny f hi

ritings t is simply that e ught never t have x cte t historians' explanations t begin th. W can acc unt f rth lack in

this fashion but we must r fer t the hist ry f the r ble , andmisleadingness f the C v ring La m l, to acc unt f r th f

anyone th ught this lack orthy v n f r ark The above, then, are s me f th ays in hich th ain siti ns

r bl m f historical xplanati n hav b n articulat d. ven brief acc unts, it sh uld b clear that th artisans in this strife havtended to appr ach the pr blem ithin a c nt xt f i ering phs phical c mm tm nts and ith di ring crit ria f what c nss lution t a hil s hical r bl m his r its a good d allethal cr ss r , and a g d al f gr und shift ng, ith u

holly clear ho the robl m might b s lv t ev ryone's satispart this is due t the fact that much of th i erence bet een

phil s pher and that is due t straight f r ar verbal disagr emc nt stants really quarr lling v r ho a c rtain k y word is t b

rofess r Scr v n f r instance has c nt n d that an ex lhatever furnish su rs ndingf the ph n n n r event hichants xplaining. her is no reas n hy r f ssor Hem l ne d

this claim. He might ask h ever, for an analysis f understandinmight g n to say that he uld r c gniz nly that as proviunderstanding (in c ntrast ith seud understanding?) hich hesaid all (genuine) explanations ex ibit a deductive structure As rr fessor ray's reservations n the explanat ry valu of All e

15


9/17

An lytic l Philo ophy o Hi toryghts we e bowlegged w th ega d to the fa t that B an Tuke was

bowlegged P ofesso He p l g t say that the e s a qu st o to beg nw th whethe th s se te e sat s es the te a fo a ge e al law and thathe s as awa e as anyo e of the d ult es n say g what these te a a e

enso the senten e f t ue s ha dly so on expl atory as aysuggests It d ates the d e t o wh h we ght seek fo a expla a

on fo example B an's pos t o as a k ght n o t ast say w th aompa able ge e al se te e All be s of the Tuke fa ly we ebowlegged a d suggests that B a s d s gu e e t was a a qu ed

athe tha a he ted ha a te st As fa as the o te t o o thep t of ay a d e that h stor a s expla a d he e g eexplanat ons of e e ts Hempel m ght say o ly that he ag ees sa e thatfo the p poses of ph losop al a alys s he p efe s to des g ate these asexpla at o sket hes Why qua el o e wo ds?

oto som exte t the qua el tu s o e bal ssues but at the samet ethe e s a d e ent att tude towa ds h sto y. ay a d e appeato o s de the p a t e of h sto y pe fe tly sat sfa to y as t sta ds butHe pel f h does ot ope ly ad o ate a efo m of sto y th d et o of phys s-the pa ad g s en e-has e ta ly e ou ageda o g so e h sto a s at least the ew that h sto y ought to b e sedClea lyhe would ot a ept the thes s that su h e s o s poss blea d that the d st t o between h sto y a d a y g atural s e e sult mat as the ad o ates of sto s ha o t ded. sa swe to th s w ll be that the d e e e s d ed ot ult ate but thatphys s snf cta good deal mo e l k what h sto y snf ct;that H pelhasm s onst ued the log al st u tu e of the pa ad gm s e e t el a dto th s s du the stake not o that h sto y equ es e s o -fothe e s o ont ast of the p esumed k d between h sto y as su h a dphys s as su h but b tween h sto y a d phys s (o a y s e o theo e hand a d a deal zed odel wh h o espo ds to o a tuals e e but o ly to a log a s fa tasy o th othe

But th s tu e e ts a fu dame tally d e ent att tude towa ds thetask of p losophy He pel ght ply to e s ha ge that t wasnot h s pu po e toscr bs e e That job s bette left to the so olog st

Rathe he was seek ng as ph losophe s ought at onally to e onst u tthe o ept o s e t expla at o . H s o e was to spe fy what16

Th Probl o G n r l L wond t ons must be sat sf d f w a e to p etend to ha e adequat

fo so eth ng of wh h a expla at o s sol ted It seemeplaus ble to h that we ha e adequate g ou ds fo a expla awhe w a e able to dedu e t f o p em sses wh h sat sfy a

o d t o s.To the la that g e al laws a e pa t of the g ou ds o xpl t o 1,as e has s sted a d ay b appealed to fo p

of /s y ngan expla at o h ght ask how just at on' d stood? The e a b o doubt that e has w de ed thd s uss o by b g g p ag at fa to s but s ot theus g laws to just fy a e pla at o -the quest o of what he all

just fy g te a the u al ssue? These ole just fyalled to play whe he who o s t expla at o s equ ed

th ha ge that pe hapsno ausal o e t o x sts etween the phem o as so fa spe ed a d ts all ged e e t But how s thb m t ex ept by p o g that t e on e t o holds? What ex ept to b g fo t the app op ate g e al law ? A d o e hat s does th just at on not s mply take the fo of a dedu t

so fa as t do s ot to that d g ee the just at o has ota h e ed. o f just a o does ot e ta l dedu t o tht e fo e ope at o s fa f o lea

o the te s o s wh h ex sted a o g ou o g al th e peappea as fu the t s o s a o g th a y g solut o s

t s o s t se last g ow g out of o pet g att pts to f x theof e ta key te s a o da w th omp t g at tula guag h sto y a d p losophy ts l Y t as w t ou op opos t o s th e s e s to b a le e t of t uth eapos t o s o ed solut o to th o g al d ult s

t s d ult to asse t to a y o e of th f th s equ sje t o of t os a g Now I t k t s poss b t

me t of t ut f o all fou o t g pos t o s a d to oof the l of laws sto al xpla at o w g

eouslysat sfy all o te d s; a a alys s wh h w ll d ssol eulty by exh b t g all fou as o ple ta y ath tha x

Assu g t s a be do e we a I th k t e tu to the p

of d te g what se s th fo of h sto al pl atof a a es17


10/17

An ly ic l Philo ophy of Hi toryT ou pos t ons I hav d nt d av ma nly ad to do w th tst uctu o th l sand th moot qu st on was wh t g n allaws a to b nclud d nl and(B)sa d y s, but wd v d d about wh th th ah s oric lxplanat ons.(C)and D)s d d w th(B)on t x st nc o sto cal xplanat ons, admitt ng tw such th ngs, but said that no laws a nclud d n xplanant a.

Wh as(C)sa d g n al laws ai som s snvolv d xplanat ons,D) j ct d this out o and. Y t th ssu wh ch was not a s d anyo th positions has to do, not w th th anatomy o thl sbutwith that o th l d mI shall a gu that th a l dwh chlogically p suppos g n al laws, and xplananda wh ch do not.Acco dingly, wh th o not th a to b g n allaws n th xplanansd p nds upon ou o g nal d sc pt on o th v nt o wh ch xplant on s sought. I shall a gu , u th , that th o g nal xplanandum snot on wh ch log cally p suppos s a g n al law, t can b plac dw th on which do s, and v c v sa, so that t qu st on o g n allaws s n som mpo tant s ns co n ct d w th th qu st on o owp nom na and v nts a to b d scr b d.

H I s ould l k to mak an obv ous and t v al po t. Ph nom na scha not xpla n d. It s only ph nom na ascov r d by d scr o

w ch a capabl o xplanat on, and th n, wh n w sp ak o xplain ngth m, t must alw ys b w t nc toh d sc pt on So an xplanat on o a ph nom non must, n th natu o th cas , b lat v z d to ad sc pt on o that ph nom non. But th n w hav xpla n d aph nom nonE, as cov d by a d sc pt on D, t s always poss bl to danoth d sc pt on D o E, d wh ch E cannot b xplain d w th tho g nal xplanat on I th a ind t ly many poss bl d sc pt onso a ph nom non, th may b nd t ly many possibl dint

xplanat ons o that p nom non, and th may, nd d, b d sc pt onso that ph nom non und wh ch t cannot b xpla n d at all.

Unl ss w xpl c tly g v th d sc pt on, o unl ss an nt nd dd sc pt on o t s mplicit om th cont xt, th s no s ns to b mado any u st to xplain th d s gnat d ph nom non. H I shall bsp ak ng o H mp l s analys s to b g n w t . Now my po nt s that,

st ctlysp ak ng, I can no mo xpla n o ask o an xplanat on o tC vil Wa than I can xplain o ask o an xplanat on o t p c o 8

Th Probl of G n r l L wpap t yp w t W o would now w at to mak o t

xpla n that p c o pap -unl ss a d sc pt on w , so to a , as o xampl , th pi c o pap s w t , o s ,w th jam spots? At b st, th xp ss ons th C v l Wa ' oth p c opap n th typ w t a ng xp ss ons. Tsubj cts o s nt nc s, th obj cts o v bs, but by th ms lv s ts n nc s, and h nc , by th ms lv s, a n ith t u no alsobv ous asons, th y cannot s v as conclus ons o d duct v aB i w at th to ca o l b cov d b aws i

tt d i to s t c s a d th thi gs th d sig at ca th io l b cov d by laws i st th a cov d b d

i guisticall ak d, th a u i t lligibl How v thp cipl , d sc ptions which might cov th m wh ch logicallyth m om b i g cov d by g n al laws

Cons d , o xampl , th ad tt ly qu st onabl not o

com l d sc pt on o E. t us magin t s to cons st n takilogicallyd sc m nabl u s nt nc s about E, abst acting op dicativ xp ssion, and th n conjunct v ly ass t ng all thtiv xp ss ons o E, so that th w ll b as many p d cativ in th conjunct on as th a d sciminabl t u s nt nc s about E. Itdo s not matt that w cannot u nish such a compl t d sc ptihow v , by th p inc pl o th d ntity o indisc nibl s

possibl o two ph nom na E and , to hav id ntical comd sc iptions. But th n und a compl t d sc ption, E cannot b by a law, o such a law would b log cally st ct d to a singl and would acco d ngly b disqual d as a law

But w n d not st ict ou s lv s only to compl t d sc pH mp l s own c t a o a g n al law, a p opos d lawL must conta nno ss nt al- . . un l minabl -occu nc s o d s gnat ons

obj cts . H nc in so as a d sc pt on D o a ph nom nonsuch d s gnat ons, t can ot, und D, b cov d by a g n aa oot qu st on wh th all such d s gnat ons a n p nc plSupposing, how v , a avou abl answ w g v n to th sso t at n p incipl w m ght liminat , om D, all suc d s

and p oduc anoth d sc pt on D wh ch conta ns non stb cov d by a g n al law und D- t b ng adm tt d t at t


11/17

A lyt c l P lo op y of H torys d s p ons n o g nd ano d s p onD', i cso o d B s is as s a l s ow a ial ons d a on s gg s

a a p nom non an b ov d by a g n al law only sofa as wod a d s ip io w i on ai s no imi ab a i a d sig a

io of i O b i w an o a v wi a g a aw oo w av ov d i wi a g n acr tB n i is s

d d s ip io s of a om non d w i i anno b so ova d a no a o di g b xp ai d a o g H m ia i s i m dia fo ows a a o of is o wi o ain ma d s i

ions of v s d w i v s a o b x ai d if H mmod is o B i do s'/ J(fo ow a mod is as Hwrr co a v s i q s io a xp ainab O x ainab

d d s i io s i a b giv n m B n o x ais v s q i s ar c o m d d o b abl o

d s ib s is a ad i a s s o av x ai d m Fo

of n w a o a o g d s i io n w ow x a a ion a d y i a agai d s i io ai s a ov i g aB l s ll s a s la ms by a i g an xampl w is yp a

of a ol lass of o al xp ana ions xplana ons w i f o is o y of w a is a q s xplana on ng b a

ion of as I OH g u s s w d o a d as ono d x wi ag of o a o B sid b sid i s o b fo dA r c ags O mig a wond d w if

Am i a ags s a i g id of a i o gasq ags wo ags of o a io s fo i s a ng is o F o G man ags

is a o x in w i o f s n d of a x a a io a x anaion i d d of wo i gs s of A i a a d abs n of

o ags alongsid na onal on s And is a w ol y pla sibxplana ion so on m g g v mig ll s a P n

ma i d an Am an woman A is po n w mig p ay P of oay s gam ; w m g say a now of o aw w i onn s

nK(P n Ra n ma ying a ss G a lly) w n E o gasq s i g o A i a ags d i g i a io a

oliday) nd d a s l l of d s on s!O law w onn s s n s b w app op iar cr t nof a n i isasy no g o f n s law and a aw in fa w bo l n s and is

0

T Probl of G n ral wli ns d y d s i ons F mo w a

a i d o g d s p io s f a xp anafo m

H is a ad of d s ip ions a di n ls of

T e Mon g sques ut ou A e i n gs si e si e wit Mon ggs

. T e Mon g sques we e onou inga o e ign o A e i n i t. T e e be s o one n tion w onou inga so e eign o i ent

n tion o igin o t i ownW may ga d as d s p ion of n b fo an was availabl W may on n o m i l uW may

ga d as d s p on of n r n as b nxpla n d Had w own is d s i on of v n o

wo d no av n d d a x ana ion i fo pan ags o fo abs n oags of o na ons W may gacas a

d s ip ion of again sam v n o g o d b a of agood many d n v n s of sam nd. W may gac nd das s of limina ing ms d signa ng pa i aof g n a d s gna o y ms w i in d o iginob s amongs i x nsions. s a mc l n A a ybq a i s as anl n tuas w l T fa s a mov fo

s la y asy o ma T a d wo is mov o amo n s a mos a ansfo ma ion in p ion w n v s al d main ng ons an b now

ws of a ons i s On as a g iof a i g b n im na d So on mig yi ld o p ilosop i a p n and s n ons and f o andc as s i y c cr tand

b tr ctx lana m is la w i s v s o p a fo ma law

law? n i no di o s a a l as a agg n al law mig b spo an o ly ad a d by anyoni m na d by d s p i s if f om ob is som ing l

L. W ene eanation as a so e eign o a i e ent nationa o gin t an

own citizen t ose citizens w l on t e a o iate occa ion onou to e e gn in o e acce ab e as ion


12/17

An lyt c l Ph losophofHistory ndependently n wn

K- Th so r gn Prin ss o Mona o is o non mon gas u or ginK 2 Th p te tio e mo g squeis an a ro riat o asion or honouring

so r igns o Mona oK 3 utting out th ags of a rson s nat ountry isan a tab a

o honouring ha rson as a na i of ha nat on.

a ng stated all these nne t ns-and there m ht be per ns f rwh m they sh uld all h e t b sp lled ut as well as th r nne t nsw th spe al qual at ns-there s n reas n t d ubt that we uld n

he end exh b tc as a dedu t e ns quen e f all f the t eth rPresumably the explanat n here s th rre t n but t may take s md ng t get t all stated n a rre t f rmal way s that the dedu tm ght g thr ugh I ha e n bje t n then f s me ne w r t say

ha I ha e pr ded nly an explanat n sk t h I ha n a a e waynd ateda law e en stated that law and spe f ed the r le ant n t al

nd t ns. r ha eany bje t n f s me ne wants t p nt ut thathere s n lear n df r w rk n the explanat n up that all f what ha estated w l perhaps b sp ntane usly nderst d by the p rs n twh m the explanat n s made Pragmat ally th re s n p nt but

re deal ng w th a ph l s ph al quest n Students f f rmall g m hf d t equally t res e t spell ut all th steps requ red f r a f rmaldem nstrat n f an argument wh se a d ty they ntu t ely r gn ze.

w there are any quest ns left t d s uss but I sh uld l ke t pausf r a m ment t nd ate h w the ab analys s m ht b a pta le tthe th ee last p s t ns n th f ur spe d arl er

Surely th analys s ust sat sfy empel. We ha e a law w hersthe e en We ha e en an explanat n sket h wh h uld w th

appr pr ateare be made nt a fully d d explanat n and n general,apart fr m the remarks n explananda and explanata th analys s sma nly h s On the ther hand t sh uld really sat sfy ray as well Tbeg n w th he lawL d es not er the e ent as su h n r s er de nunder the des r pt n -wh h s just the s rt f d s r pt n nw uld be m st l kely t f d n h st ry b ks. Y u ann t m re erdedu ethe explanandu ( aga n) fr the explanans. It s wha I ha e

ter ed the l n t wh h may be s dedu d and t may be sf rt t h p nt u that we ar abl t pr de th explana um222

Th Prob of G n r L wsd ndeed he law nly after we ha e had th exp anat n und u f r ursel es). Th r pla em nt f th xplanan

the explana um( w thband then ec) u t n t str ke h m as ll gate. It s n fa t exa tly an nstan e f what he has e sewhe

expla n ng what n h st ry In fa rness t ray t m ht ban wh ga e the explanat n d d n ts th lawL But t s me ne

unfam l ar w th h n ur n st m w th nat nal symb lswh lerelated meshw rk f genera n t ns r n epts the expw uld be utterly paque The expla ner w uld be bl ed expl

ent ns me su h law asL n su h a ase t just fy s explanat nth s br ngs us t S r en. rL w uld n t mere y p ay tha ju tr le h has s mu h emphas zed but t w uld qual fy as a truh st rms a n rm s nt n e M r er t es a sense tust at n the sense f perm tt n a dedu t n. Th s w

mpat ble w th th ntextual and pragmat ns d rat n

arefully utl ned.S t seems t me that by pay n s me attent n t the quest nphen mena are t be d scr b dwe an elab rat a the ry f the r le general laws n h st ry w h w ll re n le deta ls apararguments f three f the ma n p s t ns But ha e y t t terms w th T t s n w turn

Str tlyspeak ng he analys s just sket hed mus appear atly nble w thf r t learly supp rts mpel's ntent n that the paf explanat n s nd erent t the d st n t n between human

human phen mena r any purp rt d d eren e between thhuman'and thenatural' s en es There are n fa t tw ns derat

y example wh h pla nly sh w that we dn r ct cappr at andndeed understand hu an beha ur n the l ght f ery geneptswh h f stated expl tly w uld take th f rm f gen

The rs s the pla n fa that n ha ng expla ned the puttAmer an ags by referr n t the nat nal pr enan e f theruler f M na m st pe ple assu ng the equ pped w th a m

f rele an h st r al nf rmat n sp ntane usly see the

w th ut ha ng t fumble f r the appr pr ate general law n wh h t e nne t n h lds The ery fa that hey d n t nee


13/17

Ana yt c Ph osophy o H sto yxp icit to th ms s or r q ir oth rs to ak xplicit or th m what

th s g ra aw is shows or stro gly s gg sts that th k g t rms of g ral co c pts is so at al as to b ry arly co scio s It isaccord gly ry asy to s why i i w of th psychological fact thatth laws i q stio a r co scio sly t rtai d (or s ldom so)philosoph rs wo ld b t mpt d to say th r is o g ral law or that

o g ral law is r q r d to d rsta d th xpla atio . Th s co dco sid ratio is that th lt d or a xpla atio th s s of p zzlm t r q tly typically aris s wh w arlto assimilatth ph om o q stio i to a gi g ral co c pt. W thi k: th

ags ar o t to ho o r a ri dly atio . t this do s ot t. For whyot th ags o oth r i d d all fri dly atio s? So it is with r sp ct to

som acc pt d g ral co c pt abo t ag displayi g b ha io r that war p zzl d d this agai shows how prom t a r l thpragmatic asp cts o th prob m g ral laws play. Som o say achild who was co rsa t with th applicabl g ral c c ptsco d o ly b q ipp d with a s s o p zzl m t i h was rsti str ct d th appropriat g ra iti s lack g th s h f ls o d

or xpla atio s M a whil it wo ld b i corr ct to say h ts f ltto b i d of xpla atio ca ot b co r d by a g ral law o thgro ds that th y ar to b g with appr ciat d asc nsto somg ra aw. For it o ly o lows that th y ar xc ptio s to a g ra

aw which it was a mistak to apply to th m origi ally a d ot that thar xc ptio s to yg ral aw Th r is xpla atio a a alogto th ph om o o il sio . P tti g o t agsc l b a i sta c of ho o ri g a ri d y co try. I this cas it was ot a i sta c o thata d th p zzl might ha a is from simpl tryi g a d ai g to s bs m it as a sta c o that g ral co c pt. t th ill sio is disp ll dwh w s th t ot as a xc ptio to th g ral law origi allpropos d b t as a r ri sta c of a r ng ral law altog th r

I sha l r t to th s co sid ratio s a mom t. So ar it s ms thatw ha a stro g co t r arg m t agai st o of th basic co mitm ts o Y t it m st admitt d at th r r ma s som thi g thatca y t b do o b half o that positio . L t m b gi by poi ti g o t a

rth r at r o H mp l's a alysis. H claims a d has b s r lyt ciz d or oi g sothat xpla atio a d pr dictio ar o a pi c224

Th P ob of G slogically sp aki g that w s xactly th sam apparat s wh th

xpla a t w ch has happ d or pr dict a t whhapp o r apparat s is satisfactory-th di r c b i g o yr lati to th t m o th t's occ rr c w p t th apparplay W ca b said to ha xpla d a t if a d o ly ifha s cc ss lly pr dict d th t b or it happ d si

th sa aw h s ai wo rtai y b obj ct to tho , o o whos ma th s s is that h ma b i gs ar fror itmight s m to th m wholl compat bl with h ma fr domh ma b ha io is pr d ctabl . t th acc pt g H mp l'sco rt g xpla atio s i to pr dictio s a d ic rsa: if b ha io r is xplai abl it is p dictabl . So if th y w sh to

pr d ctabl th y w ll also th wa t to say it is xplai am a s of th s of g ral laws Wh th r or ot th y ar r gh

cti g pr dictability with th gatio o th th s s that h mafr is a iss I do ot wish to prob at this poi t. No th l ss I possibl to gi a r a alys s o th r latio ship b tw xplapr d ct o which wi l r d r my a alysis o g ral laws acc pth m a d so sal ag part at l ast of th r positio . O c agaI hall paysom part c lar att t o to th q stio of d scriptio

Now it s ms to m that th r s o do bt b t what if w aw a d w a itio that th mo gasq Pr c ss wo gasq or g a d that af was a appropriat occas oor ho o g so r ig s w co ld with som s c rity ha

th t q stio . Or rath r w co ld ha pr d ct d it d scriptio or -th d scriptio w arli r charact riz d as th xt m. Y t it do s ot ollow that w co ld with th sam s c rity th basis of th sam i formatio ha pr d ct d th t d scr ptio or tho gh a dc ar all d scriptio o th sam a d tho ghca dbar d d cti co s q c s o tog th r with ti itial co ditio s w ha sp ci dis n I shall co t d ow thatthlaw -a d a gr at ma y i ot all th laws wh ch ar l m

xpla atio s i history-co rs a class of sta c s which is both na d n - g n sThis is so b ca s th d scriptio s which s r

l n ha op a d o homog o s c ass s o ts axt sio s. To r f r to my ill stratio th r ar ma y di15


14/17

The Probl m of G n ral Lawsmany d erent th n s h ch the mona asques m ht ha e done h ch

ould nd er ntly e co ered yc(or and yL utt n out a s sut one ay of sat sfyin the enera descr pt on G en the app opr ate

con ent ons the descr pt onentails the descr pt onc, utc does noenta l For appeal o the same con ent ons a ac s compat le

th not One can honour a fore n orn so e e n thoutnecessa ly

putt n out the a s of that so ere n s nat e country So one could ha eco rect y p ed ctedc thout also p ed ctin;or one cou d ha e eencorrect n pred ctinc(or and ha e eenincorr cn pred ct n.For ad erent e ent d mi ht ha e happened nstead of ,and yet e co ered

y the same aL and the same ne al desc pt onc It l not doacco d n ly to say s mp y that e can p ed ct thev nThe quest on sunde hat descr pt on the same e nt mi ht ha e een pred cted

This po nt s co nected th an ear er one here I spoke of the construct on of narrat es on the as s of documentary and conceptua

e dence seek n to f a ap n histor cal kno led e here documentary e dence( ' h story as record s u a a la le e may tentat elyand on the as s of some ene al la of the sort I ha e een d scuss n oron the as s of some type concept postu ate the occu rence of an e ent oset of e ents to l that ap We m ht y chance ha e h t upon hat nfact happened But a type conc pt s just hat t s: t has to do th hattyp cally can e th case and this s compat le th a ho e ran eof qual tat ely d e nt e ents a l of h ch sat sfy the same eneraldesc pt on and any on of hichc nha e happened But to e in a post on to kno h ch e nt n the ran einf chappen d e requ re docum nta y dence Conc ptua e dence accordi ly at est suppo tsa s account

Th la s then h ch may sa d to e mpl c t acco din to Hempel s accou t n t p ca h sto ca explanat ons are pecul arly loo ethe sense that they can accommodate any num er of qual tat elyd erent nstances They ndeed perm tcr iv o or ni i s,for the classof e ents they co er s open n th sense that e can n pr nc ple al ays

ma ine an nstance co e ed y them h ch need not n any o ousay esem le past nstances It s th s sort of s tuat on or example h ch

allo s us to class as orks of art th n s h ch do not necessar y resem leo cts a eady classed as such and h ch perm ts a t sts to pursue

Th P obl o G n ral La sno lt h ch should they succeed n ndin t does not autod squal fy th from ha n p oduced a ork of art What e hado th he e n fact s hat W tt enste n has noto ously under the namefam ly resem lances It s n the nature of familproduce mem ers of themsel es hose exact resem lance to any existmem er s more frequently the except on than the ru e The a

appeal to then n h sto cal explanat ons could e serted n just fy a p act cally nexhaust le class of exp anat ons noneray has prope ly contended actual yn i sthe la On the other hand

they may e sa d to enta l the a hen taken n conju ct on th m ht termr s of r scri on acco dance th hich e mayr place a en descr pt on of an e ent th one of reater eneTh s set of ru es s perhaps d cult to spec fy hat for exampc ter a y h ch e class somethi as a ork of a t? It s moreoal ays a s mple matter to e ect th s re descr pt on for the same e

rto sustain one en ral descr pt on hen n fact t requires a don It s th s h ch makes lo cal room for hat I ha e calledi sions of x n ionNo there s one o ous o ject on h ch m ht e a sed a a

charact zat on of ene a a s Suppos n acco danceana s s one has expla ned an e ent that s one has co ered

ene ala after st co e n t th a mo e en al descr pthasmad the mo e from explanandum to exp anatum The fact emthat exactly the same exp anatum and ene al la could ha hthou h the e ent exp a ned as qu te another one f om hat n occurred as descr ed th a d erent explanandum than the on

a e so that th dent cal explanatory apparatus could ho d hethexpla ned e ent occurred o not Thus let E e the ent n qu stl t D e the explanatum ofE But suppos thatE s an e nt qual td st nct fromE ut nonetheless also co ered y th eneral descr ptThe quest on no s hy since our explanatory apparatus can ot cr m nateamon st the nstances h ch t co ers e ant to say thatha e exp a ned E for e m ht th the same apparatus ha e exE Suppose someone cla ms hat e really ha e not then expla nedE happened nstead of E For the descr pt on D does not enta l o than t enta sE -thou h th r of these th th app op a

7


15/17

Analyt cal Ph lo ophy of H toryw ll enta l D Sinc th explanat on s compat le w th other poss lhappen ngs re we ent tled to regard t as an explanat on t all AAlan onagan wr tesI it is s pposed that an exp anation need no ogica y entai whait exp aisb t ay be consistent with severa other possibi ities, t?en it i to exp anwhy one or another o these possib ities was not rea ed w a to expa nwhy what it p rports to exp ain sho d have happened rather than so eth ng

se.!It s nterest ng that onagan's statement here was o ered y h m as oneof the argumentsn f vourof the Hempel an model ut that we areactually a le to ra se t as an o ect on nstwhat s essent ally a var antof th Hempel an mod l On the other hand t s not qu te true to say thatthe xplanat on does not log cally enta l what t purports to expla n It

o senta the explanatum The pro lem s that t does not enta l onerather than another of the var ous nstances nd erently covered y thesame explanatum Thus we have to make a d st nct on etween twosenses of other poss l t es

To eg n w th, there s one sense n wh ch our explanat on does rule outother poss l t es. Cons der only the act on of putt ng out Amer can

ags w th Mon gasque ags dur ng thj Th sC(lf/covered y any num er of d erent general desc pt ons or explanataIt could for nstance e an nstance of the descr pt on honour ng afore gn power'. It cou d ndeed e an instance of the general descr pt on nsult ng a fore gn nat on putt ng out Amer can ags m ghtconst tute a stud ed nsult aga nst rance It could e oth together. But

these general descr pt ons are ruled out as other poss l t es y ourexplanat on assumed to e correct It s perhapsa l ttle strong toay teyar ruled out, for there s always the poss l ty of overdeter at n.

v n f we accept the r nc ple of Su c nt Reason and s y that for eachth ng that happens a su c ent cond t on for ts occurrence must haveo tained th s does not preclude the poss l ty of more than on su entcond t on hav ng o ta ned Nor s t an argument aga nst someth ng

e ng an explanat on that there should e anoth r explanat on of the sameth ng eople do ll two rds w th on stone go walk ng to get exerc se

and lam chops and the Mon gasqu s could at once have n honour gth r sovere gn, hono r ng one for n country and nsult ng another8

Th Probl of G n ra aand do all th s perform ng ust the one act on. ut these arepl cat ons we may momenta ly overlook and s mply say that overdeter at on other poss le general descr pt ons are ruled ouwehave succeeded n cover ngevent w th the correct explan tumHav ng done th s however there rema ns the second sense otherposs l t e ' namely, those other co poss le events cove

t cular descr pt ons each of wh ch sat s es the same general deAnd s nce the latter fails to d scr minate amongst these t doesout any of them We could not deduce wh ch of them held f we onlyknew that the general descr pt on were true It s the sort of th ng

nowonly y ndependent h stor cal nvest gat on and nasmaddas there s no compara le h stor cal nvest gat on for thefutur ourknowledge of the future s general and a stract y compar son wknowledge of the past now ng even all the general laws there m

e we could not, f the laws wer the sort have een speakpred ct the events o the future under part cular descr pt ons Tsent o ect on however s that we cannotl nevents under thesedescr pt ons e ther

We have then these two senses of other poss l t es Ththe same event may e overed y d erent general descr pt oth s fact wh ch makes overdeterm nat on poss lew ll as llus ons ofexplanat on. The second s that the same general descr pt on caqual tat vely d st nct events. Th s fact serves to account for thecharacter of our knowledge of the future and symmetr cally further fact that w thout document ry ev denc h story as reknowledg of the pa t would e as general and a stract as our knowof the future Our explana t on se ves d scount ng overdetermt on to

nd cate wh ch of the class s our eventm hte an stanc of t snf ctan nstance o I shall say that t rules out other poss l t es cl ss s nsBut hav ng solated the class th event elongs to t does nus to say wh ch of the many poss le nstances wh ch could had d n f cthold shall say t fa ls to r le out other poss l tm m rsh s nsTh s wo ld perhaps e un mportant f the memthe class n quest on were homogeneous ut s nc they ar th s

fa lu em e regarded as defect n th s th o y of explanat onNow I am not certa n that I can sat sfactor ly me t th s o9


16/17


17/17

A ytic P i osop y of Historyof which was diamet ically opposed to The e can, on th othe hanbe no q estion b t what, in som s ns of th t m, we sho ld only bable to decide which gene al desc ip ion to give of th action-p ttingo t ags-by v ifyisome fact abo t the Mo gasq mind, anwhat the p cise ntentions we e. Y t it does not follow that w n ep fo msome ope ation of mpathic p o ction to v ify any s ch fact

To begin with, the emphasisI hav plac d pon c ativity is al ady alimitation on this notion. o we o s lves, wh n we b have c eatively,oft n f d that we have hit pon a ce tain t ng witho t b ing clea how did it, o what, if anythi g, w nt on n o minds at th c ativinstant To identify empathically with o minds at that momenwo ld leav th empathiz no cl a than w , ass ming h was s ccessf l in sim lating o own m ntal stat S condly, th a cl a lyg n al d sc iptions of actions nd which the action was not int ntional,inwhich case, of co s , mpathic p ojection wo ld nat ally b inapp op iate. inally, and as a sp cial case, the g ne al d sc iption-theexplanat m which th ag nts th ms lv s wo ld place pon h event

ght, on th basis of histo ical knowl dg , t o t to hav b n thew ong one, an ill sion of xplanation which only lat histo ical s a chis abl to ectify B t in that cas the explanation of the v nt nd thisnew, and p s mably co ect desc iption, wo ld b fa di nt f omthe on hich thos involv d in th v nt wo ld hav given So thpa ticipants in the ev nts, as y chapte on na ativ sentenc has, I hop ,d monst at d, ave no p ivil g d stat s when it com s to histo ical

xplanations

have t i d, th s, to salvage that pa t of the t th which ach of thepositions a ay d can b said to hav , and to synthesiz a theo y of the

le, in histo ical explanation, of g al laws; a synth sis which wo lsatisfy all fo positions as w ll as acco d with act al p actic . B twhe is the oom in all of this fo th positionIcommitt d mys lf tod f nd? o th th o yI hav synth siz d s ms, on th fac of it, compl t . hat n d we now do, in xplaining v nts, sav cove them withge al desc iptions and th nc g n al laws ? hat f th point n d be

mad ? hat n ed hav fo na ativ s To th s q stions I shalldevot th next chapt3

Documents

Danto - The Problem of General Laws