科学说明和历史解释——论自然科学与人文学科的方法论统一性

Scientific explanation and Historical Interpretation ——On the Unity of Methodologies of Natural Sciences and Humanities

本文针对亨普的科学说明模型及其在人文学科领域的推广所受到的批评与反驳 ,从研究说明的逻辑形式入手 ,通过对科学说明模型的分析 ,论述了科学说明和历史解释的异同 ,探讨了自然科学与人文学科在方法论上的统一性。作者认为 ,科学说明模型中 ,最基本的不是“演绎论旨”而是“含摄性定律论旨” ;“含摄性定律论旨”在历史说明中也是必需的 ;自然科学与人文学科一样 ,都需要学术共同体的价值判断 ;所有的经验科学都要涉及说明和解释 ,因此 。

The subject is Carl Hempel's model of scientific explanation and the criticism and refutation it has been subjected to during its propagation in the humanities. Looking into the logical form of explanation, then analyzing a model of scientific explanation, the paper discusses the similarities and differences between scientific and historical interpretation, and delves into the methodological unity of the natural and human sciences. The author holds that Hempel's model of scientific explanation most importantly offers a “covering law thesis” in place of the “deductive thesis.” Covering laws are also indispensable in historical interpretation. Both the natural and human sciences need value judgments from the academic community, and all empirical sciences involve explanation and interpretation. The differentiation of the natural and human sciences does not warrant the separation of one from the other.