The discussion of the philosophical question of historical explanation is in reality a disagreement concerning the nature of the philosophic method.         There are primarily two sides taken in this argument, those who agree with Carl Hempel and those that do not.         According to Hempel a historical event is only sufficiently explained when it logically fits a set of confirmed pre-existing conditions along with some universal laws.         Certainly all things cannot easily be assigned to rules …showed first 75 words of 613 total…

…showed last 75 words of 613 total…number of explanations surrounding certain events are too many for the method to be simple and useful. Furthermore, this type of classification and identification is more the work of a scientist, not a philosopher. And what is to happen when there don't seem to be rules and laws predicting an event, is a Hempelian to then make them up? It would seem then, that the Hempelians are in danger of losing sight of their objective.