BLEKKING PEKKING ENGIN

HANNIBALSSYNI ARNORI TIL HEIDURS

2004 24. MARS HANS AFT0Ann AFMIELI i TTLEFNI
N I I K A E I -K A I t L S S 0 N

BE A SCIENCE'] CAN HISTORY

Ritstj6rn Erlendur Jrinsson G u i n u n d u r H e i 6 a rF r i m a n n s s o n iissurarson l l a n n e sH ( t l r u s t e i n( n

uu.,r,t: )rlr?ll.t iv.-r,t;t.q ud lesgja ril ritsetd i btik til heidurs Arttdri b:t,', I1 Ilttttttil,uLr's.r'rri .r'fr,lrugrrttt ett Jutrrrt ltelilr verid stutfslelltrti tttittttI prjtitiu tir oq lp.t'itr rlllegtt ltitid ul tttirf uttt fr t'it-tLltlurs sttkir. Eg trcl ekki tLtttrid t n i k i d v i d t ' i i t t u t g . s e l i ttii h e l y t t td l t r t g u . s l i 0 t u u Alrrriis, Ett pes.saritge rd ltel ig.:krilu0 oe ltfin he.fir pe.sstttr og sog,tt.speki. t'tLgtttJi'rc)i b 6 k t i l l L c i d u r ' .A st t t r i t ' iu J f l e i r i e t t e i t r t r it i s t a d r t . FIrsttt tistieddtter ir1 i Lterrrri er fettgisfi'ld rogri. Eg f!ttti ritgr rt)ittu rt1t1thallegtt settt oltittberan Jttril'1"tr,r,'7. ,leserttberdrid 2()0I vid lreittt.spekiskrtt' Htisk6luns [ (]enritLLi ittiliu. Ft,rirlesturittttt'ur stit'sluklegtt *tlttlur stritletttuttt etr ltorttrtrtt'ttr liku nllttd ud b.jddu sttrtls.filagutrtrnItrturtI lteitttspekir.rgsiirrr sjottttrrttid og rdk.settnlit^. Adulrilgungur ritgerdtLrintr(tr cr ekki ad svtnt ttwd uJgerntdi htetti spurttittgtrntti setn er lteiti hetrtrtLr edctleggltt til t'el t(ituttkudtL skiLgreittinguti sogu (verkefti sent er r)rugglegtt ttft,u.ridttL[tttrttt lrclileikutrr), I r e k l t t ru d s i , t r L t J n uttit l * ' e n t i g l r c e g s t i t f i r r t i l g u s ts r t t r t ' t t i t r g t tfr p e . s . s t r tL t gti t g ( per pess vat'pa d 11d:i og t,ottttntli skilttittgi i stud ud letuh gugtsktusuttt bnetunt. Ritgerditt vttr ptidtl tned litlrun brel'titrgrttttti litluii.sku tf Egle ll'ittigA I o t c ' i l r k e v i c i u to eg g e J i n t i t r t t e dh e i t i t t r t, , A r i s t o r i j t tg u l i b u t i t a t k s l t t . s T " i litItciisktt (2005 7, bls. l9-21). Pettu et.dnttttrcttrtittgurthtrctritittu Kultulits Bztrtri pess pessari ritgerditt ur dstei)tt u0 ho.t'ir b6k pvl Lt1 Artrtir lnJitr I nfirg tir (og heJilr t,Ltfuluust etut) tttikhrtrdhugtr ti Elstnt.soltsli)trclrttrtttrt og hefilr udstodud sttttfsJdLugtt siu<tog stitletrta par ttted ttttu'gt'isleguttt luetti. KLtltttt'trs Barai 3.y' siitn ritgerditttt tir i ve.fi(tttutitisrlrl Eulozine en ltur birtist hiln i.fi,t stct.situtd ettsku;s.jd <http://tlvrv'.eLtntairte.t'ottr/ur.tit'le.s/200.j09 - 0 5 -kn r L.s stttr - e tt.htr til>.

ft|;,;,,t'+i ' yF : :':

('f ,1 :'tl:.

P.1idarrcliltn ci lithtiisku sendi rrrrjrtthttgaserndir vi6 t itgert)ina et'iir ad lttitt haldi sid utrt ritgdJil hetmttr / Kuturos Barai. cudrttutulrtr Heidttr Frhrattnssott, eitttr at' ritstj6rutrt pe.ssctnl. bdkat; settcli nEr eitutig utlLugtt,sertulirog sTtLtrttittgttt: Eg r*'li sttttrctrttJ pesstuttutltugtrsettnlttrtt i ttedtuuttdlsgreinuttt pes.stu'ttt'titgtJi,l,ess,rr rredotrrttdlsgreitrtr huJtr ekki birst dirtt. ltlig Ltggit.Lt0

90

HANNIBALSSONAR ARNCJRS AFIVI,LISRIT

]\4IK,AEL KARI-SSON

9I

st'oraekki cjllumuthtt?asend(senr6g endttrtekctd nedctnmdlsgreittttr ltessar s6rlegaveL edu gagnrllttitmi tfttumsetnkornrt fi.am)svari ekkispurningtmurn stodi sent ttokkr? lescuttlLrttgrr beturJt'rir nrdr ttekiferi til u6 skyrn t:npcer ge.fa Ij6sir i ritgerlirtni' ekki ertt nrcgilega

I
"Can histtlry be e scithe cluestion, to try to discttss It woulclbe pointless For there clarityingits centralterms,"histclry"and "science". r.vithout ence,l" it aboutwhat thesctermsmean;anclindccd, is doLrbtagreement is no general takenin isolation{iom the varitrus ful that they nteananythingvery specitic, baseduptln A cliscttssitln aPpear' nlay they in which contextsof discourse needto dtl we what protit. without termsis boundto be vagueand contestecl which we alter discussion, fbr the sakeoiour present nteanings is io stipulate trs' Perhaps led have to which otll-stipulations canreflectupontheconclusi6ns that cclnvinced we will beconre with our work; clrperhaps we will be satistred or fi'uitless' were misleading that we nracle the stipulations

II
untl critical seurcltJbrthe ct1t1t<ts' Let us tirst say that scienceis the systenrcttic tlnt is gtouncleditt the ctseurc'h phenonleila: of ltnv-got'ernecl ite tmderstantling and sowrdprocti(e' inference of et'idence' st(uu'ldrds oJ recognizecl ctpplicotion investigawe lneanthat one scientifrc is systemutic, By sayingthatScience with, others,both past atrd present' tion takesaccountof, and is correlated at least globally and ctloperative, Scienceas a human activity is cclllective in one areahavfesults interconnected, ale sciences ancl the various speaking; at lelnnot undertaken are pro.iects Scientitic fbr otherafeas. ing signiticance as systenlatic clom,or in isolationfiom previouswork. Speakingof science circumscribed-within and inexactly a community-howevertliffirse supposes and which are commlrnicatecl tinclings ancl hypotheses which investigaticlns, science' of practice tbr the responsibility takescollective i s c r i t i t u l .w c t n c u nt h a t w h a t e v e irn v c s t i g u t i o n s . B y s a y i n gt h a t s c i e n c c to the scientiflccomtnuuity are and resultsare communicated hypotheses stanwith an eye to the nret|gcltlltlgical anclevaluate<J meantto be received conrmunlty' by that and supported dardsrecognized

Taking up a view set out by Aristotle,it is here stipulated that science is only with lcnt-govented concerned phetnntetru. This doesnot inrply that only such phenonrcna are worthy of study nor that other phenornena cor"rld not be stLrtlied in a criticalandsystenratic way; but it doesimply thatany studyof'nonlaw-governed-phenomena would not be scientifrc. The significance of this limphenornena itationto law-govelned is in firctunccrtain, sitrceit is not entircly appafent-ancl is incleed debated-.which phenornena may be considered to be law-eovcrned and which not.It is not settled how the notiono["'1aw-gctverned" is to be undelstoocl; andevcnif thisbe stipulated, thematteris unclear as to cases.Phenomenn assumed to be law-gctverned might turn out not to be so,andthe converse is likewisepossible. Whetheror not a given type of phenomenon is law-govcrned is not self--evident; it is a matterthatcanonly be resolved tlrrough investigatiorr, and suchan investigation may be quitesubtleand lt'rng-reaching. We will hrrve morc to say aboutthis lnatterprescntly. By thc Ltpltosite Lmderstanding phertonteno of law,-got,emecl is meantthe sortol'understancling appropriate to laiv-governed phenonrena as law-governed phenornena. Just because a given phenomenon is law-governed does not mean that a given approacl.r to understanding it rnustbe concerned with its law-govelnednature.For example,supposetbr the sake ol argumentthat rneanings ale law-governetl. A theoryof meaningmight be aimedat describing the plincipleswhich governrncaning. Now literarycriticismrnightaim at graspingthe meaningol a certaintext, say,a poeln by Yeats.But the ptrint might be to interpret the text-we can call the unclerstanding airnecl aLinterprzliua undcrstanding-ancl giving the interpretation might not appealin any way to the principlesgoverning nreaning. Indeed.this attemptat understanding might be completelyunconcerned with the questionwhethermeanings are,or are not, law-governed. pointsindicatethat our dellnitionof science The two last exegetical supports a ccrtain idea as to how scientillcunderstanding is to be achieved, althoughthe icJea is not strictlyentailedby our dcfinition.The idea is that scienceaims at discovering the laws or principlesthat governvariousdomains o1'phenomena and at explaining the phenomena tlrattall within thosedrtmains by showinghow theyderivefiorn the laws that governthern. This is scientiflc explanation as conceived by JohnStuartMill, Carl Hempeland a hostof others. Tlie appositeunderstanding phenomenais achieved of law-governed throughprovidingexplanations of this kind. When we characterize scienceas a searchtbr understanding grountled in the application of recogtized stantlatds oJ evidence,inJerenceancl sounrl

92

A F I V I , L I S R I TA R N O R S I ' T A N N I B A L S S O N A I T

MIKAETKARLSSON

93

and recognized standards we rel'eroncemoro to the methodoltlgical pr(tc:ice, the critical These,rve said, undellie by the scientillccttmmunity. supported that investigations, fbr it is with an eye t0 thesestandards of scienoe, aspect are llleant comtnuntty to the scientitlc comluunicated results and hyptttheses tbl undersearch the what shape arg But thesestandards also to be received. that the standards They are scieitce. the nattle to which we hcreattach standing who wtluld and trainingare meantto inculcatein those scientitlceducation ot, and an understanding becomepart of the scientificcoliltlrunity;indeecl, may be viewed as the lonly) true credentialof respecttbr, thesestandarcls in that cillnmunttY. niembership tutcl ittference et'idertce, ctl' standards in questionare accepte(l The stanclalds stanno such realnts of incluiryto which Thereare inrpgrtant soundprdctice. and critical as a systematic which rnay be characterized dardsapply.Philosophy, tlf sttch-tnay lre conseil-chtor understancling-andindeed as a paracligrrl of the standards For in philosclplry, thisrespect. in precisely with science trasted is debated. part what of a are all antlsoundpractice int-erence evidence, over Is the t'actthat an action would prttducethe bestbalanceof happiness John StuartMill says tbr its being morally estimablc? evidence unhappiness what particular hereis not.jtlst Kant saysno. What is colltested yes,Imnlanuel disagreernent llluch not be (indeecl, rriight there are mot'allyestimable actions to connaterial w'ould bc considerations aboutthat) but ratherwhat sortsol' et'idence. count as ahoutwhat to an actionto be so.This is a question sidering of B, may we lcgitimately of A haveall beeninstances instances If observed of B'? will likewiscbe instances of A yet to be observed thatinstances conclude schotll his Ptlpper and but Karl may; that we think science philosophers of Mclst irr aboutwhat tc)cottntas legititrrute think that we may not.This is a question of scnsein tertl'ts or analyze ference.Isa notionthat we are unableto explicate Or as nonsensical'? to be dismissed (say,the notionof obligation) experience may notions of this kind bc given a place-even a central place-in our acclzrim, "erllpiricists" havemadethe tcrrnler Many so-callecl of theworld'? counts underrnay be This the latter. "rationalists" made have while many so-callecl sormdpractice. about what constitutes as a disagreement stcrod but ltot in which wc flnd rn philosophy, Theseare the sortsof dit'furenccs of evidence, may be thoughtof as a searchfi)r standards Philosophy science. as fbrllling a and soundpracticethat might somedaybe accepted inf'erence has been afi'antework a fiamework for certainrealnlsof incluiry.When such we Speak Until sucha tiameworkis achieved, we speakof "science". chievecl, .,philosophy". nevthatphilctsophy sentinlent This may explainthecornmon of

er gt:tsanywhere-simply, when it does get somewhere, we switch our tenninokrgy. philosophyis the rl<lthcrof'the sciences. On the view hele presented, Sciences corneto exist in the wake of philosophical creativity, rellectionand debatc. A subject-rnatter becornes scientificwhen philosophyhas createda fianrcworkwithin which it nray be investigated on a collilrronground. W e s h o u l dn o t e t h a t s c i c n c e i s n o t , o n t h i s v i e w .a c l o m a i n withinwhich all, or nrost,mattel's are settled. On the contrary, science may be-as it seerns in tact kr be-a hotbed of controversy. But it is a domainwithin rvhichcontroversyis carriedon within a fiameworkwhich providesthe basistbr eventual settlernent, because thereis a commonunderstanding of the kinds clfevidence thatnray c()untli)r'or against a given view and ol the ways in which this evitlenec t n a l h e a p p l i c dl t r t h c c a s ea t h a n d . l In developing clurcharacterization of science, we have stressed that scienceis a Irumanactivity,rootedin a cornrnunity that appliesnorrnative stanclards to plactice,to theory and to results. Thesestandards may changeover time.What characterizcs science is not the particular setof stanclards to which it cleaves at any given l"uonent, but that it cleaves to some such set of standardsat everymonlent.But everyscience hasa historical climension, and may be seenas the development of understanding within a certaintraditirtn. Our way ol'charactelizing science is not philosctphically irtrpar.tial and is not a characterizaticln which anyonecould be forcedto accept. It is, however, a view that rnanyhaveaccepted, at leastin its essentials, althoughlnost often without fbrmulationor announcement. lt captures-or is at least meant to capture-one of the leadingideasabt'rut science. We can add to what we have so tar said that sciencernay be observ,atirttttrl, exptlttnatory or technical;thesethreemrldesof scientificpracticeare dist i n g u i s h eh tJ y t h c r ra i r n s . Obselvational science is concerned to describe what happens, both in particular instances and as a rule. In other words, it describes both individual eventsor conditionsand also regularities. observational data constituteits basis; it is not hereirnpliedthat "what happens" ntay be simply observed (e.g. it was not simply observed thar the planetsrevolvedarouncl the sun in ellip"what happens"nrustolien be hypothesized tical orbits).On the contrary, in the wake of certainobservations and thesehypotheses testedagainstfurthcr observations. There is in f'acta certain sc'rrt of explanationwhich belongspr-imarily to observational science: the sorLof explanation that "organizes and makesplain" a given body of observational data (to bonow a phrasefiom NancyCartwright).

9,+

R N O RH SA N N I B A L S S O N A R A F N I , { L I S RA IT

MIKAEL KARLSSON

9.5

Expianatory is concerned to explainwhy what happens, lrappens. science ExplanatorysciencepreIt is concerned with fianring causalexplanations. observational science.On the other hand, it nriglrt bc saicl that supposes yc i e n c ef;o r i n i s o l a t i o n - w i t h o b s e r v a t i o ns ac l ience a n t i c i p a t ee sx p l a n a t o rs goal in prospect-observational n,ouldhardly bc science out the explanatory recognizable as science. Finally, of theresults o f 'o b consists in theapplication t e c h n i c as l cience sciencc' to priictic;rl encleitv'rlrs: to the clevelopservational and explanatory neednot be scicntitlc,by the way; it nraybc mentof technology, Technology the oftipring of practicalknow-howanclerperience. It shoulcl be thoughtoljust to the extentthat it dcpentls of obseras scientitlc Llponthe application v a l i o n ua l n t le x p l a n a t r l rs yc i e n c c . clisciplinc eo m b i n e s A t y p i c a ls c i e n t i f i c a l l t h r c eo f t h e n r o d e s . j u sd tescribed, ratherthan restricting itself to any one of thcnr.l

IlI
Let us now say that historfis tltes)stetttatic ttntlcritital seurclt.t'br tlte turderstanding of pttst events,actions and practices, selectedattd tretttetl vrith o yyhic'lt view to their human signiJicance; a searc'h is grotnded in the applicl ation of recognizetl oJ'et,iclent:e, stanclorcls inJererrce attl sountlpr.Lcti('e Herea-eain we'give a characterization which no one would haveto acccpt. History can be described ditfbrently.But it does not seenlunleasonahle to describe it as we have.Our description is rnodest and secnrs at tlrst glanceto clescribe the kind of activity in which many histoliansare engagecl. Let us look more closelyat the elenrents of the description. We seeimmediately of historyreitclatesnranyof that this characterization the elements that were includedin our characterization of scicnce. Histoly is describedas a systettuttic urtd critical searchJbr understculzliiig, and thisparticularly the implications involvedin describing historyas,r.),slas regards enlaticand critical-is to be undcrstood in nore or lessthe samcwtry as befbre. We said earlier that in attributingthesel'eatures made tacit ref'erence "ve to a certaincommunity. ratherthanret'erring In the present case, to the scientiflc communityas a whole,we ref'er groupu,hichnay simply be to a srnaller described as the communityof historians. We leaveopenlor tl.re nromentthe questionwhetherthis con.rmunity is to be viewed irs a part oi the scientiflc communlty.

wc have arsodescribect history,like science, as grcurttreditttrrc appriccttiorr ctJ'recogttizeclstail(lartls of'evitrence, inlbrcttce utrr sourttl procric.e. While wc 'eave open the possibility thar these standards difl'er in cerrain respects r*,'n the standards appliedby the scientifrc cornrnLrnity, they ar.c broad_ ly speaking stanriards.f.iust the sarnekind. Takentogerher with the systenl_ atic antl criticarcrra.acter that we havearrributed to history,we may say that these f'eatures suffrce tcl characterize history as a cri.sciprina. whether rt is a scientilicclisciprinc is a niatterthat we rviil go .n r. c.nsider.. Trre position takenlicre is that cvcry science is a discipline. but that nor everydisciplineis necessarily a science. It is perhaps a bit unnatural t. crescribe r.i"n." grobaily as . discipline,but trrere see's Iittle ha.n in d.ing so; so in additior, ,u ,uy_ lng, o. the basisof trref'eatures.iust rrentioned, that physics,chemistry, biti_ l o g y a n ds o o n a r ed i s c i p r i n e s w.e w i ' a r s o a p p l yr h cr e r md i s c i p l i n ca , t a higher lcvcl s, ro speak,to scienceas a whore. As a tliscipline,hisfory rs evi d e n t l y r o h e t l r o u g h rr i | a s b e i n g a t r h e r e ' e l o f r h e i n d i v i , r , o t, . i . n r i n . d i s c i p l i n e s . j uu sr te n t i o n e d a,n d n o t a t t h e n r o r eg l o b a lI e v e l . Having lo'ked at the elernents cornrnon to oul-chalacterization af sciencc, on the o'e hand.and histrrry, .rr the.rher-, lct us n.w turl to the speciar elc_ mcntsinclucled in our description of history. we havecharacterized hisro'y as c,,nce.necl ivith'asl evetlts, ttctio,s ancr practice.s, serec'ted utd treeted v,itr.tct t,iett.to their httntett sigttific.once. rt wottld arguablybe too narrowto restrict the dornarn of hist'ry to hurnanactions'sincevariousevents, suchas l'loodsand famines, and practices, suchas slavery, havehad hunriinsignificance ancr have,indecd,lecror f.rcecrhuman beings t . a c t ,s i n g l ya n d c . i l e c t i v e r yi,n v a r i o u s w a y s .B u t u r u c ho f w h a l h i s _ to.ianshavet. tell us concer'swhat particular pe.prehavecrone, ibr instance thatcaesarredhis legions across the Rubicon, thusdefyingthe Ro^an repubIican g.ve'n'rent; or that in rg64 Abr.ahaur Lincorn issueda procramati.n abolishing sravery in the Unitecr States. or that parisians stormedthe Bastiile on July l4rh, I 789. Although'on our account, historyis speciaty c.ncernedwith pastevents, actions and practices, most of theseare in |acl ol no concernto the historian. It is only thoscwhosehunran signiricance is r.busr that belongto the subrect_ matterot'history' The idea of "human significance" is n.t clearly fixed; in thct,.ne might took upon.itas conteste(r u,',onghistorians (andamong.thcrs as well)' one can cra'ify by examplethe kind nt,t.ringrhat is rneantin,r,"n_ tioningthis as a key t'eature of the evenfs which concer-n history. An event,actlon or practice hashumansignificance if it is constitutive of or afl'ects central

96

A F I V I , E L I S R I TA R N O R S H , C N N I B . \ L S S O N A I i

MIKAEL KARLSSON

l rgiinizution, eu , l t u r ep e l e m e n to sf h u m a n s o c i a l i l ' es u c ha s l a n g u a - uc , o l i t i c au or ntorlesol erneconomicorganization, class structure,l'anrily.structure p l o y m e n tt ;h i s l i s t i s o i c o u r s e n o t m e a n tt o b e c o r n p l e t ef.h u s , N a p o l e o n ' s presenting rvith a -eolcl the Enrpress Josephine necklacein 1807 would not havehuniansignificance in the sense nreanlhere;but his reconciling with the EmperoA r lexancle i n 1 8 0 7w o u l d . orf R u s s i a Thatsaid,howevcr, it seerus thathistorians rlil'l'elent havecluite ideasabout the events, actionsand practices that have human significance. A long tradition in historyselects rnainlyparticular actsof powertirlpolitical liguresas havingsignificance of this kind. Perhaps rhe grearesr part of written historieal work tbcusesupon the strugglesof such figuresto -qainand retain power, and upon the actsthat they perfirnnecl in exercising that pow'cr(e.g. levying t a x e s ,s u p p r e s s i n g r e l i g i o n s ,b u i l d i n g t l e e t s , c o m n r i s s i o n i n g calendars, rnounting warsand refbrnringlaws).This selection coLrld, of course,be secn asmerelyreflecting the personal interests bulk ol'hrstorians. o1'the But historians typically prctencl to be cktingmore lhan writing abrtutthe n]a{tcrsthat "Loctk, tliusd are the tbscinate then individually;they say to us in e1't'eet, events, aclionsand practices that maclea clif'tblence to hunransocial lil'e in theirtinre;thesearethe nratters worth writing about."Whcn historians rentrin silent about actions and practicesin the lives of cornruonpeople, for instance-as theyhaveindeed doneuntil tluiterecently-they retlecttheir.juclgmentthat suchmatters areot'little consecluence or, in our ternrs, lack "huntan significance". Historiansnot only selectfbr treatlnent evcntsof actionswhitse hunran significance is judged to be robust,but they also investigate and write abour thoseevents in sucha way as to bring out or explair.r their hurnan significance. That seems to be the point ()f researching the pirstin rhe historians' way and of writing history: to grasp,and then to convey to an audience, the hunran significance of salientpastevents. Historymay be descriptive, concerning irselfwith u.'ftnl happened-tbr instance with the question whetherRichardIII of Englanddid, or did not, rnurder the little princesin the Tower-or it nray be atiological.concerning itself rvith rr,/i-y certain things happenccl-lbr exanrplew,ith the cluestion why so many Oklahomatarrlersmigrated to Californiain the 1920's.

IV
wc can now ask whctherhistory,as we have briefly characterized it, coulcr be a science in the sense tlescribecl carlier. In rhis.egard,we needto conside'rirst the questlon whetherthe phenonr_ enastudiedby historyare raw-go'erned. Thesephen.mena arc, we sard,past events' actl()'s a'd practices; but sinceit is pri'rariry past rrurnan acti()ns of which historians seekunderstancling, we may fbcus our attentionupon ther.r here'If hu*arr actio.s are not law-g.verne<1, then that would niean,acc.rtring to our-torrnulations, lhat historycould not be a science. It is not easyto .rns\/cl'the questionw'ether humanactionsare ,aw-g.verned,antrthis tbr seveLal reasons. one of 1[re marnreasons is that it is n.t crear what recluirernents apply to a plrenomenon sardto be law,-g.l,erned. Anothcr reasrn is that evcn wcrc it in fact the casethat rrurnan actionsare law_g.v_ ernedon solnereasonable construal of what th.

to asse'twith any confidence that hurnanactionsare raw_governed, cven if they are. The cluestion we al'e now crusicle'ingcornesup not o'ly i' cclnnecti.n with history but appries ro all of the social scicnces. Intercstingry, hisrory rs s.nre[ir'escrassiried with thc s.cial sciences ancls.metirnes with..arts,,; ancl this may .ellect two criiTerent ideasaboutwhat hist.ry is or aspires to he. Bc that as it rnay,if liist.r'y is any kin<iof a sciencethen it is evidenrlya social s c i e n c e.,r ' w h a t J o h nS t u a r t M i i l w o u l d h a v ec a , e d a ' . m o r a ls c i e n c e , , . 4 The rnclral sciences, lor Mi,, were those whclse targetphenomena were grounded in lhe "laws of mind". N{ill irnagined that therewere laws of rnincl, properlyso-called' arthough thesehe considered largeryuncriscoverecl rn his day.Thcsewoulclbe rhe principles governingthought,fceling, intention and, the'efb.e,hunranacti.n. Justas physics andlhe'iisrr.y ,noy b" thoughtof as tlre frndar'ental naturarsciences, studyingthe basicprincipres acc.rcrrng r<l which all narural phenornena work, so psychologyand ethology may be thoughtof as the fundarnental rnorarsciences, studyingthe basicpii'ciptcs ot. mind and action'And .iustas geology,biology anclother speciainaturar sciences rnightbe thoughtof as investigating the ways in which rhe basicpr-inciples of naturework in speciar contexts,in apprication to particularsub.icct'atters, so history, sociology and other speciarnrorar sciencesnright be fhouglrtof as investigating the ways irr which the basic principles of rnincr work in applicationto particularspheres of thoughtand action.Hence.Mill

close r. disco'ering rhe raws rhar g.vern ,n",ilt;]:::lJ;:ilT:t;:ili:;

98

AFM,LISIIITARNORS HANNIBALSSONAIT

NIIKAEL KARLSSI)N

9q

and bttt strttctr'rrally as two separillc. and rnitralsciences thoughtof the natr.rral nlincl tll' laws the basic By implication, systenls. similar, lnethodologioally clf the same as the law of gravitation: of suchprinciples wouldbe counterparts point of view, bLrtapplyingt0 very kind fiom the logical or methodological laws, expressThesewttuld evidentlybe deterministic phenomena. <litterent generalizations' (that is exceptionless) of universal in the fbrm ible the lawsof nrindnight not be shown whether the questign N,{ill consitlered upon. the laws ot' nattlre;whether,in cont1l retlect.antl to be dependent to the nrttr.n'al nright not be rcdrrciblc the socialsciences language, temporary could not be ruledoul, but that M sciences . i l l t h o u g h tt h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y it anywaya very that suchis the case.He thpu-ufit therewas no real evidence a ltlt more rvithottt debatecl seriously not be that could question, one premature beingknown thanwas known in his tinte. includinghistory, then,is to think of the socialsciences, Mill's approach, (as N'lillthoughtit ttl assumptign making the reasonable sclences, as nascent "laws by tundarnental which they studyare governed be) that the phenomena rvithproviding ctlttcerned pf nrincl". vr'tltrld he ultinrately Historyso conceivecl And these past actitlns. hunan "coveringlaw" (or notnolctgi6ttl) of acc()Llnts tlf in tltlt, l-ttlrvever' tet'nrs be causalaccounts, would in many cases accounts and physicalcausesbut r.rtherin ternts 6f mental causessuch as n'rotives intentions. point of view; but we havenot come nruch turThis is surelya possible the basiclaws of mind upon in discovering ther than Mill's contemporarios corte to light are ncant to be built. It has,htlwevcr, which the socialsciences governance by basiclaws doesnot in the interimthat the ideaof deterministic In other words, not even basicphysical h0ld even for physicalphenornena. imaginedby Mill. Yet rve are rein the sertse phenclrnena are "law-governecl" So we need are sciences. physical sciences the give up the ideathat luctanttr:l the sgbjecttornr phenpnlena the vierv that law-governed either to abandon "law-govto a diffbrenttrotitlnof or we needto appeal matterof the sciences, is erned"than Mill (andmany olhers)had in mind. Here,the lattef approach recommended. of historyat the view that,fbr the purposes hasac'lvanced MichaelScriven seen as govany rate,humanactionsand Otherhistoricaleventsneednot be exp_ressible paribusprinciples, morethanvery looseceteris ernedby anything "normic And I, statelnents".) calls "truisms" sometimes Scriven or what as phenomena the to widely trpply may alstl this haveargucdthat amongothers, If this view is correct,we nlay arguablybe studiedby the naturalsciences.6

saidto know alreadythat humanaciionsare law-governed anclto know many of the laws that governtlrenr. without pulsuingthis question turther-herc, lct us inraginethat the phenomena studiedby historyare law-governed and that historyis not to be excluded fiont the sciences gr.ound. on tha.t But nriw the questionariseswhethcr history aims at untlerstanding pasr humanevents ar law-govelned phenomena. If so,that wor-rld rnean thathistorical research shor.rld be heavilyconcerned with showinghow particularpast events tirll underlaws;ol at lcastit shor-rld fiequentlyinvokethe laws governing hutnanactions in tl.re descriptions and explanations rvlrichit ol'ltrs: historical explanations would lhen mainly be explanations t}om general laws (what we earlierrcf'erred Lct as nontologicul, or cot'eringicu', explanations). This seems not to be the case,evenif it is grantecl that historians must assurne, in of'fering suchclescriptions and explanations, that the eventswith which they concelnthernselves are governed by particular laws (which could perhaps be statecl if necessary). Historians are also little concerned with discovering and articulating the laws,if therobe such,thatgovernhumanactions: whereas natural scientists are very much conccrned with blinging to light the principles which governnaturalphenorncna; indeed,this may be seenas the key to thc understandin og f n a t u r es o u g h t b y t h e n a t u r as l ciences . i s t o r i a n s e e mt o b e H concerned with quite ditlelent uratters, narnelywith trringingout the human signilicance, as we havecalledit, of pastevents. The understanding ained at by historians rnighttherefble be described as the understancling of the hurrran signiticance of pastevents. In pursuitof this sort of understanding, the historian must,of coursc, glve an account of what has happened and also of'why it hashappened. Sinceit is ntostlyhumanactionsthat are in question, suchan accountis usuallyan acc()f what has beendone anclwhy it has beendone.It has beenti.equently ount. maintained that an account of what hasbeendone-and e\/enmore so an account of wy''r,y what has been done has been done-must indicatesornething a b o u t h ei n t e n t i o no s r p u r P o s ew s i t h w h i c ht h ea g e n t s in qucstion a c t e dA . ctions fall under variousdescriptions, not all of which make ref'erence to the intentions tlrat underliethem. Intention-indicating descriptions seem,however, [o be necessary elements of any account of why an actionhasbeenclone, in the sense of "why" which looks fbr an agent's reasons fbr acting.Descriptive historymay thusappear to be lessdependent thanretiological historyupon giving an account of intentions. But, in the way that we said that observationalscicnce anticipates explanatory science, descriptive historysurelyanticipatesreticllogical history.An historiancould hardly considerrhe quesrion

IOO

A[.'N{,4]LISRIA T RNORS HANNIBALSSONAI{

N1IKAE L K ARLSSON

IOI

th()little princesin the Ttrwer whethcror not RichardIII of Englandnturdered have hacl ior trtrrdcling wiluld Richard reastlns what without consiclering them.7 tlt an actitlnlies ntlt only in its efthe human signiticiince Furthermore, not onsucltsignilrcance For we assess but in its underlyingintentions. l'ects tlte grou'thtli cities,ttr ruin, tc'r ly in terms9i an action'sleadingto ecilntttnic of the nucledisstllutitln ttl the of scholarship, the decline to industrialization, being sholtits of in ternrs but alstl like, and thc ar tamily, to urbanization l'orw6rd-lotlkgenelous, seltlsh, stupid,cruel, clcver, ill-consiclerecl, sighted, sort designis a clill-erent luin tftrough ing andso on. Bringingaboutectlntltnic t'uthan bringingabtlutect'rtttlttrie sort of significance, oi act,with a dift'erent intentions in the lies clift'erence oi the the source ancl stupidity; in through which underliethe actions. a cltre givcst-ts of intcntitttis with giving au acc()unt concern The necessary retusedtcl ctlnsideras historicalduta have traditionally as tcl why historians thc rttins,grave lirr instunce. eschewing. otherthanwrittenaccounts, anything The idea t'tlustbe archaeoltlgists. which so occLlpy sites,bonesanclartit-acts likely ttl be ablettl most we arc of which out the texts are sources thatwritten is hard clf histtlriar.rs dognta this point of I'iew, Frttm an!' other readintentions. to comprehend. at hereas tlie sort of undelstanding In any case,what we havedescribcd solt thanthat at which the which historyairnsis evidentlyof a very difi'erent tbr sayingthat histtlry rcason aim.Ancllhis is prohablythe strtlngest sciences is not, and indeeddoesnot seckto be, u science.

V
to our account) at which histtl;y airns (acctlrding The sort of understanding -fhe "interpretive" "nanative" r-rnderstanding. or been callerj has sometirnes (as must tell a story abouteventsin which their hunransignificance historian 9f an eventit) is broughtto light.The signiticance understands the historian wholly it contains that not stlntething action-is is an evenwherethat event our norlllupon ancl i;ualities both upon its inherent within itself,but depends both upon lhe events clepends Signiticance to thosequalities. ativereactions emThe story tgld by the historiannlust therefbre and upon the interpreter. p e r s l ) c cllve s t a n c e a n ( ) r n l a t i v c c c r t a i n a u d i c n c e ) a t o a n b o d y t a n dc ( ) n v e y This oi, treatcd that are events to the which is applied on humansignitrcance

pefspectivc will inflLrencc the historian's accourlicif what lias beencloneand of why it was done,and it will alsoaft'ect the way in which an eventis placed lnto a horizontalnarrative designed to revealboth its roots and its portent. It is clear fiom what has beenjust said that history is thoroughlyand inesciipably noilnative. This might be thoughtro tell againsr its bcing a science, sinceit is oftenrnaintained that science is (or shouldbe) "vaiue-fiee". But that ls no part of what hasbeenrnaintainecl hele.Indeeil,we haveclained that scicnce is glcluncled in normative standards respectetl and appliedby the scientiflc corrrrnunity; this might be called the cotrstitutive rtornttit,it| of scrence. what we haveclain'rcd hereabouthistoryis that it is alsct perspectit,alh, nonncttit'e,i.e. that nrakes value-.iuclgments with respectto its sub.ject-nralter. (Thcse two types of non'nativityhave otien heen conlbuncled togetherin discnssions concerning the "value-lieedom" clf science.) oul characterization o1'science dici not specifythat it must be value-tl-ce ln Lhelattcr sense(that it rnustal'oid perspectival nor.nrarivity). we recluire<i only that science airn at understanding law-governed phenorncna as law-governedphenomena. ln order tcl show that sciencemust uot be perspectivally normatrve one would tlrerefbre haveto shorv, given our account, that perspectival nrlrrnativity is incompatible with understanding Iarw-governed phenonrenaas law-governed phenornena. And I do not think that this can be shown. Sincc ideas about human signiticancechangeover tirne (and are cliverse evenat any giventirre), historymust be writtenin rnanyversit>ns, and re-wrir.(en, even about the sanle events (or what nright be iclentifiedas .'ihe same events"undersomethin description). T'hisneecl not show that historycannotbe ob.iective in a celtain sense. of courseit cannotbe ob.jective in the sense of being free of nonnativity.But it can ob.jectively r-eflect what niay be saiclabout a glvensetof pastevents fi-oma givenpoint of view abouthumansigniticance; andthe historian can alsobe explicitaboutwhich point of view he takes.

VI
The conclusions tlratwe havereached aboutwhetherhistorycan be a science, and about lelated mallers, are of coulse very tentativeones. we have asketl largequestions and given overly quick answers. But.our discussion was not meantto answerour largequestions Once and fbr all, br,rt to show by exanrple how suchquestions niust be approached and to ofl'ersonrefbod tbr thoushtto thosewho would like to pursuethese questic-lns more deeply.8

102

A F N I , L I S R I TA R N O R S H A N N I B A L S S O N A R

NIIKAELKARLSSON

IO:1

AJtrmmdL
I \\'ltG u d n r u n d uH r e i d a ra s k sw h c t h e ri t i s n o t t h c c a s et h a t .w h i l e s o r n ei s s u e s ale contes(ed $ h i c h a r es e t t l e d a l t ( lu n c o n t r u v e r s i i r . a cerllin wiry, h i n s . ' i e n c el,h e r ea r e n ' ta l s o n r a t t e r s I ln t h i s h a st o b e t r u ei n o r d e rf b r s c i e n c c t o g e t a n y w h c r cA . L a n y g i v c n u r o r t l c n tt,h e l ol u s t o b c a l a r g eb o d y o f u n c o n t e s t efta l c t sa n d p r i n c i p l e s i n o r d e rt o n r a k es c i e n t i l i c a c t i v i t yp o s s i b l e . to B u t I t h i n k l h r t t h c r ci s l i t t l e i n s c i e n c e t h a t i s n o t i n p n n c i p l es L r b i e c t ( l u c s l i o u\.\ ' h e n " r ' e as blsie irs v o l u t i o n s "o c c u r u ' i t h i n o n c o r a n o t h e rr e a l r no f s c i e n c c - p e r l t a p ss o n r c t h i n g are mechanics-pnnciples which have been uncontested, and indeed takcn as tbLrndational, a l l a t o n c ep u t i n f o s e r i o u s clLrestio an ndpe|haps eventually rejected. H . r e , G u d n r u n d u lrl c i d a r a s k s :" l f t h c c l o n r a i n phenonrena tl ,r c o f s c i e n c ci s l a w - g o v e r n e d question arises w h e t h e ro b s e r l a t i o n as l cience is genuine on reasoning sinrilirr to tlrrt science u ' h i c hy o L r I r u n s l a t o rE . g l e W i t t i g l \ { a r c i n k c v i c i L r trc n,a l e s a p p l y t o h i s t o r 1 , .N " l1'Lithuanian t h e s a m ep o i n t ,a l t h o L r gw h i t h a t l i f l e r c n te m p h a s i sS . h e t l n t l st h a t I u n d e l r a l u e observltirrna l s c i e n c ea , n d s i n r i l a r l yh i s t o r y , s i n c eI d o n ' t s e c n rt o h c r t o r e c o g n i z e a c t i v i t ya s s c i e n t i l i c ay ' s h o u , i n g u n t i l t h e [ i n r cc o r l e s ( o e . r p l a i n t l r e p h e n o r r r e nb h r ) $ 'l h e y l a l l r r n d e rl a r v s .l t i s inrportantto nlake onc point here,rl'hieh I anr surethat ncithcr of rny critics nrisuuclcrstantls. I a m n o t o f t h e o p i n i o nt h a t a l l d i s c i p l i n e s be bettelif thcy o u g l t tt o b e s c i c n c e so , r woLrld llr'rz scicnces. Thc readcrshi;ultl understand that I do not use lhe terfll "scicnce" lr.s an horro r i f i c .B u t t o t u r n t o t h e a c t u a lp o i n t r a i s e d b y C u d r n u n d ua r n d E g l e ,I t h i n k i n r c t r d s p e ctth x t nry tcxt is not clear enough on fhe point inriuired about. What I want to say about observationas l cience i s t h a tw h a t l l l o w ' s L r s t o u n d c r s l a n ti lt a s s c i c n c ei s l h a t \ 4e u n d e l s t r n d i l .a s p a r to f a l a r g e re n t e l p r i s e paltofrvhichis thebusineso a ,n o t h e r s f e x p l a n a t i o nl.' h a t s o n r c o r r e t h r o w sa b a l l t h r o u g ha h o o p i s u n d e r s l o o d a s , r r ' o r l r rc gr . g r r rw r lh e n i t i s p a r to f a l a r g c rg a n r e . l f t h e " e a n r c "o f s c i c n c e h r r dn c v e r d e l e l o p e d ,p e o p l er r o r : l , ld o u b t l e s s s t i l Jb c o b s e r v i n g , d e s c r i b i n ga , ndorganizing t h e i rd e s c r i p t i o n s b;u t t h i s r v o u l dn o t b c o b s e r v a t i o n a . fl(r u , i ( e, rs thatis understood w h e n t h e s ea c t i v i t i e s b e l o n gt o t h e l a r g e rg a n r e .l t n r a y l i k e r v i s e be said t h a tt h ea c l i v i t yo f o l f e r i n g e x p l a n e t i o nu s' o u l ds i n r i l a r i y n o l c o u n la se x p l a n a t u ys c i e n c e unIess the explanationswere tied in a cenain rvay to observationaleVidencc.Pre-scientitjc cosrnologygives us a good exanrpleof this. The clivisionI ol'fel betweenoltsen,utiotruL. e.rp l u u u l o n , a n dt.e r h n i . u l s c i e n c c onc is analyzing r e s t si n f a c t o n d i s l i n c t i o n s ofanalysrs: rrn integrated distinct units which can bc assenrbled activity, ratherthan descr-ibing into that act i v i t y .I f b a rt h a t t h i s b r i e f r e s p o n s e t l o e s n ' ts u c c e s s f i r l la yn s w e rt h c c r i t i c i s n r si,. r n tIl d e s p a i r of doin-sthat in a short spaca.I hope. however,that what I slv here wi)l help the reilddr to grasp w h u t I u r r st r y i n gt u q c t J I i l r r r yr n r i nt e x t . r l o r ec l e a r l y This deflnition diff'ersslightly fronr that given in the earlier-published vcrsionsof rhis paper. in response to an observation n r a d ef r y B a r b a r aB . N c l s o nc o n c e r n i n g s ! ) c i a lh i s t o r y .C o r responding changeshave been nradein the tcxt that fbllows. M i l l ' s n r a i nd i s c u s s i o o nf t h e s e ilisciplines i s t o b e f o u n d t n h i s g r c a tw o r k . A S - r ' , i r e,rl i l o 3 i L , R t t t k t L i n u t i t 'u en r l I n d u c t i y e t , h e t j r s t e d i t i o no f w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h c d in l8.l-1. Refelencc here is made nlainly to Book 6 of this work, "On the Logic of the lvtoral Sciences". See,in particular,IvlichaelScriven,"TrLrisnrs As the Grountls for Histolical Explanations"; in Patrick Gardiner, ecl.Thertrie:; oJ History (Clencoe, Illinois: The Flcc Pless, 1959), pp. 113-.+75. S"e ,r,y article, "Defeatingthe InferenccFronr Ceneral to ParticularNornrs"; RutioJuris 8:3 ( 1 9 9 5 )p , p 2ll-286. GudmundurHeidar remarkshere that "anticipates"has a double meaning.It nright nrean( I ) that observational explanatorysciencdin tirr)d.or (2) that obserr':(ionalsciscienceprecedes

e l l c e i s a l o g i c a l l yn e c e s s a rp y r e m i s ei o r e x p l a n a t o r y s c i e n c eT . h e n h e a s k s, , c l o e s n , t . a t u r a l science d i l l e r f r o r t th i s t o r yt o t h e e x t e n tt h a t i u t h e f o r n r e ri t w o u l i l be possihle to dcscrrbe t l t c p l t e n t l t r t e np ar i o r t o e x p l a i n i n gt h e n i r v h i l e i n l . r i s t o r y r t u , o u l db e d i t f i c u l t t o d e s c r . r b e eve'ts indcpondently o f p o s s i b l ee x p l a n a t i o n s o f t h o s ee ' e n t s r , , B e g i n n i n gw i t h , . a n t i c i p a t i o n " , I h a t l t h e l o g i c a lp o i n t l r o r e i n r n i n d t h a n t h e r e n l p o r i . l r o n e . r u , a sr h i r i k i n gt h a t .r . g _ icully speaking,it beconresappr.priate to orler an erpla'ation of wl.rathappensonly afier ha'ing fbr.red a warlanted icleaof*'hat rrappcns. Hou,e'er, Things are nor actuaily s. sinr p l e . h o u ' e ' c r .f b r e ' e n i n n a t u r a l s c i e n c et.h c e x p r a n a t i a nu s, e f r . a r r e t o e r p l a i nw h a i h a p p e n s s ' b s c q r e . r l y i n f b . ' r t i u r i d e a sa b o u tu , h a tl r a p p e n s I. n o t h e rw o r d s ,t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h a tt i a p _ pensis no'cr entirely separatc fronr the cluestion of why the things that liappen,happen.still, a t l h e s t a c eo l ' f r a n l i n ge x p l a n a t i o n\s \ ' Ln ' ) u s th a v ea n i v e d f o r t h c i r o r n c n ta t a n j r i e , r uf wtrat ir is that *'e are ainring to explain: this is an idea about rvhathappens or what has happeneo. As to the te,rpor;li question, I think that norrrrally observation and descripti., proc-eed in landern w i r h l h e e f l b n t o e x p r a i nw . e a'e co.srantry cha',eing ( a n dh o p e f u i l yi n r p r o \ i n g )o u r d e s c l i p t i v et t n d e r s t a n d i n o g f t h i n g s , a n d r h i s n r e a n sa c o n s t a n tr c d c t j n i t i o n o[ our cx_ planalory effir.ts. S r m i l a r l yw , e a r e r l o r e o r l e s sc o n s t a n t r y re-explaining (hopefurry in a oet_ tel lasltion)lhings lhat we haveah'earl), elpllipgd. ThLrs. tirereis no orciall tenrporal,rr.ticr t. rlescribitr-rr and explaining,even if there is a logical onc. The tlil'ference betweennaturalscre n c c a * d h i s t u r ya c c o r d i n g t o n l y a c c o r n t I i e s i n t h e l y p e o f e x p l a n a t i o ns o u g h t .E g r ec h a l _ lcngus t h i s S h ea r s t t e s t h a tt h e h i s t o r i a rc r a n a s u , e l lb e i n t e r c s t e t j n o n r o l o g i c -.a in l pianario,r .r a s t h c ' r a t t l r as l c i e t t t i s tS . h c t h i n k st h a t I n y v i c w o f t h e h i s r o r i a n a s i n t e , . e s t eo i in l y i n i n t e r p r c t i v er r d e r s t a n d i n g is too rinritedI . n f a c t , I d o u o t d e n y t l i a t t h e h i s t o r i a n , . , r ory c"k nu,,roItlgical explanationsas well as interpretiveones.althouglrthat is perlrapsnot clear frorrrrrry tdxt chalitcteristically ' o L r g hi, t h i n k t h a t h i s t o r i a n s th h a v es o u g h ti n t e r p r e t i v e r p l e r n a t i o n s ralher than no'rologicar ones;and sonrehisto'ianshave de'ied the appropriatenessof nonolosicalexplanationi sn h i s t o l t , .r t a t r e a s ts e e r n s t f u e t r r a tn o r n o r o i c a r e x p r a n a t i o n is char_ actel'istic of thc largcf part tllwltat I woLrldlike to call "science";but if sonreone wal.]ts to use this wortl diftercntly, I hiivc no obiection,provided that what is meant is clearand the strarcg1lor usrrrv t h i sl : r b c i ls illtrrtrilratrng. GudnrunilurHeidi, asks wlrether I ought not to have tarkeci morc aboutpr()gre,\s i'connectit>n w i t h l h e s c i e u c e sH . e o p i n e st h a t t r r ei d e a o f s c i e n c ei s n o r n r a l l ya s s o c i a t e d with the,dea of lhe progress o l ' k n o w l c d g eo r u n r l e r s t a n d i n g I. a g r e et h a t s u c h i s t h e c a s e .C ) u rc u r r c n r ideasof scicnceare very 'iuch infrucncedby | 9th ceniury thought, in which the idea of prrgfess was cxtrenrelv strong and central. I agree that this aspeutis largely left out of rrry discussion and that I rr:ight. i n L l e e rh J. a v es a i t rn r o r el b o u t i t . I t h i n k , t r - r , e u " . ,t h a ( i t i s r n l porl.ult to un(lerstand that it would be a rristake to (lerjnesciencein ternrsof the p.ogress oI, . n d c r s t a . d r r g .M L r c h of scicnce consisrs o f n r a k i n gt a l s es t . r r t s and beingled into blind al_ f e l ' s .S c i e n t i l i ci n t l t r i l yi s n o t a l w a y s. t u ( e s . t l i t l :b u t u n s u c c e s s f u l sci.'nce i s n o l e s ss c i e n c c than the activity that leadsto progressin knowledgeand ulderstanding.

6 7