Between Science and Literature that is the Debate on the Status of History. An Attempt at Paraphrase
Languages of publication
The author confronts two visions of historical practice presupposed by positivism (Hempel) and narrativism (White). According to positivism, history is branch of science, according to narrativism, history is closer to literature. These different views on history are paraphrased in the terms of idealisational theory of science. According to this approach, the differences between two domains of culture (science and literature) are based on the different deformational procedures applied in them. The primary method of science is idealisation (idealised object is ontologically 'poorer' in comparison with real one because is devoid of some properties), the primary method of literature - fictionalisation (fictionalised object is ontologically 'richer' in comparison with the real one because is equipped with properties of higher intensity). In the second part of this paper, author explicates some paradoxes of historical narrative (overcompleteness and incompleteness of the source base in regards to historical narrative, two-level structure of narrative) noted by Hempel and White in term of extended idealisational concept of historical narration. The successful attempt at paraphrasing is argument for the unity of science presupposed by idealisational theory of science.
Publication order reference
CEJSH db identifier