Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Analytic philosophers of history were drawn to the covering-law model of explanation

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William Dray's 'Laws and Explanation in History' (1957) mounted a sustained critique showing historians resist subsumption under covering laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dray argued historical explanation is rational explanation—reconstructing agents' reasons—which requires no lawlike generalizations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The prevalence of Dray's 'how-possibly' and rational explanation models among analytic philosophers of history undermines any claim of consensus around covering-law explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Collingwood's influence on analytic philosophy of history privileged re-enactment of agent reasoning, not nomological subsumption, as the core explanatory mode.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many analytic philosophers of history, including Donagan and Scriven, explicitly rejected Hempel's model while remaining rigorously analytic in method.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Analytic philosophers of history adopted a theory of causation grounded in Humean assumptions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Humean assumptions hold that causation is nothing but constant conjunction
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The covering-law model appeared to provide a basis for asserting historical causation consistent with constant conjunction
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.