Abstract
In this paper I take the human sciences to comprise psychology, social, economic, and political sciences, archaeology, history, ethnology, linguistics, philologies, literary and cultural studies, and similar fields having emerged besides and in between. So, the human sciences study the individual and collective ways and products of the human mind. After the term “Geisteswissenschaften” has narrowed its meaning, the term “Humanwissenschaften”, “human sciences”, seems more appropriate. By contrast, the natural sciences are to comprise all the other fields of empirical study, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, engineering, etc. In this paper I would like to give an update of, and a fresh attempt at, the longstanding heated issue whether or not there is a principled difference between the human and the natural sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Brandom, Robert (1994), Making It Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davidson, Donald (1963), “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”, Journal of Philosophy 60, 685-700.
Davidson, Donald (1984), Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1883), Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften. Leipzig.
Grice, H. Paul (1957), “Meaning”, Philosophical Review 66, 377-388.
Hart, Herbert L. A. (1961), The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hempel, Carl Gustav (1961/62), “Rational Action”, Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 35, 5-23.
Lewis, David (1969), Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Quine, Willard V. O. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ryle, Gilbert (1949), The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.
Schrenk, Markus (2007), The Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws. Frankfurt a.M.: Ontos.
Schurz, Gerhard (1997), The Is-Ought Problem. A Study in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Spohn, Wolfgang (1993), “Wie kann die Theorie der Rationalität normativ und empirisch zugleich sein?”, in: L. Eckensberger, U. Gähde (eds.), Ethik und Empirie. Zum Zusammenspiel von begrifflicher Analyse und erfahrungswissenschaftlicher Forschung in der Ethik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 151- 196.
Spohn, Wolfgang (2007), “The Core of Free Will”, in: P. K. Machamer, G. Wolters (eds.), Thinking About Causes. From Greek Philosophy to Modern Physics. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, pp. 297-309.
von Wright, Georg Henrik (1971), Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Windelband, Wilhelm (1884), Aufsätze und Reden zur Einführung in die Philosophie.Freiburg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Spohn, W. (2011). Normativity is the Key to the Difference Between the Human and the Natural Sciences. In: Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds) Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1179-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1180-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)