Centre for Philosophical Studies of History

A final, friendly reminder: Next Monday (22.06), Michal Hubálek will give the talk After First Philosophy: The Case of Historical Knowledge in our joint research seminar PHO2. Please see here for more information and Zoom link: https://www.oulu.fi/en/events/after-first-philosophy-case-historical-knowledge.

Please note that the talk will take place at 15h Central European and 16h Finnish time.

All welcome!

Abstract
Naturalism is certainly one of those “isms” that collapses under the weight of its own popularity. My book Dissolving Naturalism and Historicism Into Each Other (2025) can be read as a long argument for an ecumenical and non-scientistic version of naturalism. Such naturalism, as I understand it, does not need a qualifying adjective: it is not a local doctrine, but a methodologically and metaphysically opportunistic meta-theoretical stance. In my talk, I will ask what follows from this view for historical writing and historical knowledge. I will do so chiefly by engaging with W. V. O. Quine and Paul A. Roth, two figures who, each in their own way, make it possible to think naturalism and historicism not as rivals, but as mutually entangled orientations. Against the background of the arguments developed in my book, I will address some of the questions that currently animate philosophy of history, while also suggesting possible new orientations for future inquiry.

After First Philosophy: The Case of Historical Knowledge After First Philosophy: The Case of Historical Knowledge

Today in a week (22.06), Michal Hubálek will give the talk After First Philosophy: The Case of Historical Knowledge in our joint research seminar PHO2. The talk will be hybrid, taking place in Ostrava and on Zoom. See here for more information and the Zoom link: https://www.oulu.fi/en/events/after-first-philosophy-case-historical-knowledge.

Please note that the talk will take place at 15h Central European and 16h Finnish time.

All welcome!

Abstract
Naturalism is certainly one of those “isms” that collapses under the weight of its own popularity. My book Dissolving Naturalism and Historicism Into Each Other (2025) can be read as a long argument for an ecumenical and non-scientistic version of naturalism. Such naturalism, as I understand it, does not need a qualifying adjective: it is not a local doctrine, but a methodologically and metaphysically opportunistic meta-theoretical stance. In my talk, I will ask what follows from this view for historical writing and historical knowledge. I will do so chiefly by engaging with W. V. O. Quine and Paul A. Roth, two figures who, each in their own way, make it possible to think naturalism and historicism not as rivals, but as mutually entangled orientations. Against the background of the arguments developed in my book, I will address some of the questions that currently animate philosophy of history, while also suggesting possible new orientations for future inquiry.

Today in two weeks (22.06), Michal Hubálek (University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia) will give the talk "After First Philosophy: The Case of Historical Knowledge" in our joint research seminar PHO2. Save the date, and more info soon!

New video on our Youtube channel! Watch this interview on the philosophy of historiography and its social relevance that Georg Gangl gave to the project Analytic Philosophy in the Visegrad Countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlXJVGwNoU4.

Interview with Georg Gangl on the Philosophy of Historiography and its Social Relevance On May 15, Georg Gangl (Foundation for the Philosophy of Historical...

New video on our Youtube channel! Watch the talk "Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding" that Derek Turner gave in our joint research seminar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGA80cTPaF8.

Happy watching!

Derek Turner "Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding" On 28.05.2026, Derek Turner (Connecticut College, USA) gave the ta...

A friendly reminder: Tomorrow (28.05, 16/17h, Central-European/Finnish time), Derek Turner will give the talk “Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding” in our joint research seminar over Zoom. For more infomation and the Zoom link, please see here: https://www.oulu.fi/en/events/narrative-explanation-aesthetic-scaffolding.

All welcome!

Abstract
Narrative explanation figures prominently in the historical natural sciences, whether we are talking about evolutionary narratives that purport to explain some of the strange features of dinosaurs, or geological narratives about the origin of landscape features. The rich and diverse literature on scientific narrative, a literature that overlaps with work in the philosophy of history and historiography, has prioritized questions about narrative’s explanatory function and epistemic status: How exactly do narratives explain? And how do (and should) scientists assess narrative explanations empirically? Background worries about narratives being too easy to dream up and too difficult to test (i.e. that they are “just-so stories”), as well as background concerns about the status of the historical sciences vis-à-vis other sorts of scientific practice, have helped to keep philosophical attention focused on narrative’s explanatory work and epistemic status.

Narrative explanations in the historical sciences also have an aesthetic dimension, though, and this dimension remains under-explored. I argue that historical scientific narratives are more than mere explanations: they also have a variety of aesthetic functions. I spell this out by borrowing and repurposing an idea from Adrian Currie, who emphasizes the importance of epistemic scaffolding in historical science: Sometimes, scientific investigation of one set of problems effectively builds a structure that can then be used to make some progress on a different set of problems. I argue that it’s helpful to understand narrative explanations in historical science as a kind of aesthetic scaffolding. Once in place, those narratives can help structure and improve our aesthetic engagement with places, with geological formations, with fossils, and with other things that historical scientists engage with as part of their research practice.

Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding

Today in a week (28.05, 16/17h, Central-European/Finnish time), Derek Turner will give the talk “Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding” in our joint research seminar over Zoom. For more info and the Zoom link, please see here: https://www.oulu.fi/en/events/narrative-explanation-aesthetic-scaffolding.

All welcome!

Abstract
Narrative explanation figures prominently in the historical natural sciences, whether we are talking about evolutionary narratives that purport to explain some of the strange features of dinosaurs, or geological narratives about the origin of landscape features. The rich and diverse literature on scientific narrative, a literature that overlaps with work in the philosophy of history and historiography, has prioritized questions about narrative’s explanatory function and epistemic status: How exactly do narratives explain? And how do (and should) scientists assess narrative explanations empirically? Background worries about narratives being too easy to dream up and too difficult to test (i.e. that they are “just-so stories”), as well as background concerns about the status of the historical sciences vis-à-vis other sorts of scientific practice, have helped to keep philosophical attention focused on narrative’s explanatory work and epistemic status.

Narrative explanations in the historical sciences also have an aesthetic dimension, though, and this dimension remains under-explored. I argue that historical scientific narratives are more than mere explanations: they also have a variety of aesthetic functions. I spell this out by borrowing and repurposing an idea from Adrian Currie, who emphasizes the importance of epistemic scaffolding in historical science: Sometimes, scientific investigation of one set of problems effectively builds a structure that can then be used to make some progress on a different set of problems. I argue that it’s helpful to understand narrative explanations in historical science as a kind of aesthetic scaffolding. Once in place, those narratives can help structure and improve our aesthetic engagement with places, with geological formations, with fossils, and with other things that historical scientists engage with as part of their research practice.

Today in two weeks (28.05), Derek Turner (Connecticut College, USA) will give the talk "Narrative Explanation as Aesthetic Scaffolding" in our joint research seminar PHO2. Save the date, and more information soon!

New video on our Youtube channel! Watch the talk "Is Historiography a Science?" that Vasso Kindi gave in our joint research seminar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hwqhvO2eAA.

Happy watching!

Vasso Kindi "Is Historiography a Science?" On 07.05.2026, Vasso Kindi (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece) gave the talk "Is Historiography a Science?" in the joint research semin...

A friendly reminder: Tomorrow (07.05, 16/17h, Central European/Finnish time), Vasso Kindi will give the talk "Is Historiography a Science?" in our joint research seminar. For more information and Zoom link, please see here: https://www.oulu.fi/en/events/historiography-science.

All welcome!

Abstract
The question of whether history is a science has been a topic of discussion mainly since the nineteenth century, when history emerged as an autonomous academic discipline. The question takes for granted that we know what science is and seeks to determine whether history can be placed alongside disciplines that are already recognized as scientific. It also carries the implicit assumption that being classified as a science is desirable, since the label is supposed to confer prestige and epistemic legitimacy on the discipline to which it is applied. The conclusion of such discussions is frequently negative: history is found wanting. In response, some advocate for reforming historical practice to align it more closely with what science is supposed to be, while others are satisfied with history’s distinct character. Drawing on insights from the History of Science, I will show that the term 'science' signifies a diverse range of practices, which implies that there is no single standard against which history can be compared. I will argue that contemporary theorists of history often compare historiography to an ideological and outdated conception of science and draw misleading contrasts. I will contend that historiography is not a self-contained pure discipline, but rather an absorptive one (Megill) as it appropriates and assimilates methods, concepts, and frameworks from other fields in ways that transform it. I will also discuss certain features that are often thought to preclude history from qualifying as scientific in the manner of the natural sciences (for instance, the use of figurative rather than literal language, the presence of value judgments in historical narratives, the lack of neutrality and detachment), and show that these features are not significantly different from those that characterize the practice of the natural sciences. Finally, I will consider whether history can be regarded as a social science.

Is Historiography a Science? Is Historiography a Science?