Abstract
In this paper, I offer an explication of the notion of local explanation. In the literature, local explanations are considered as metaphysically and methodologically satisfactory: local explanations reveal the contingency of science and provide a methodologically sound historiography of science. However, the lack of explication of the notion of local explanation makes these claims difficult to assess. The explication provided in this paper connects the degree of locality of an explanans to the degree of contingency of the explanandum. Moreover, the explication is shown to be compatible with the methodological need for a general consideration in the historiography of science. In this way, the explication (i) satisfies the need to explicate an important notion, (ii) connects local explanations and contingency, and (iii) enables us to see how local explanations and general considerations can be connected. However, the explication also sheds critical light on many claims and expectations that are associated with local explanations and their satisfactoriness.
Highlights
The notion of local explanation is a topic of wide interest in the historiography of science
I argue that once we distinguish between unique causal configuration and conceptual uniqueness, the tension between localism and universalism can be broken and the value of both positions appreciated: Universalism is correct in insisting upon the use of general categories but wrong in denying unique causal configurations, whereas localism is correct in underlining unique causal configurations but wrong if it insists upon conceptual uniqueness
Even if there are no unique factors, there can be local explanations: a local explanation points out a set of factors such that had any of the factors been located differently, the outcome would have been different
Summary
The notion of local explanation is a topic of wide interest in the historiography of science. James Secord writes: As will be evident to anyone who has looked over publishers’ catalogues in recent years, historians of science have developed superb techniques for placing science in local settings of time and place. A standard model for historicizing science is to locate specific pieces of work in as tight a context as possible, binding them ineluctably to the conditions of their production. A standard model for historicizing science is to locate specific pieces of work in as tight a context as possible, binding them ineluctably to the conditions of their production. (2004, 657.)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have