Global Educational Research Journal

A Philosophical Study of D’Andrede’s Three Scientific World views And The Covering Law Model

Abstract

Accepted 29^th December, 2015.

This study looks at C.G. Hempel and Mill postulation that the covering law model is adequate for the study of history and all sciences. However D’Andrede refuted that explanation in history and social sciences (natural sciences as D. Andrede calls it) require universal generalization. The paper examines D’Andrede’s argument that the covering law model is inadequate for the study of explanations in social sciences and history. After examining  the arguments, the paper supports D’ Andrede’s position that explanations in history and social sciences do not require universal generalizations in form of the covering law model. The paper argues in support of D’Andrede’s position because the covering law model cannot adequately account for human intentions behind human actions. The semiotic science is a new “discipline” ,an emerging discipline and concept used in various disciplines with different meanings. Thus, explanations in semiotic science for instance cannot be studied via the covering law model.     

Keywords:  D’Andrede’s Three Scientific World views, Covering Law Model, Mechanistic model, Semiotic Science.