Abstract

"This book challenges the popular view that the logical structure of explanation in history can, in every case, be elucidated in terms of subsumption under covering law. It argues that departures from this logical model in ordinary historical writing cannot satisfactorily be explained away as incomplete or defective cases, and it endeavours to show how the attempt to do this may lead philosophers to read into explanations offered by historians more than is really intended, while, at the same time, important featues of what is intended are missed. In a series of independent but converging arguments, some problems raised by the uniqueness of historical events, the rationality of human actions and the logical grammar of casual language are discussed in this connexion, and the pragmatic dimension of explanation is also explored". -- Publisher.