Abstract

Hempelian orthodoxy on the nature of explanation in general, and on explanation in the social sciences in particular, holds that full explanations are arguments full explanations must include at least one law reason explanations are causalDavid Ruben disputes and but he does not dispute. Nor does he dispute that ‘explanations in both natural and social science need laws in other ways, even when not as part of the explanation itself. The distance between his view and the covering law theory, he points out, ‘is not as great as it may first appear to be’.