Deductive-Nomological vs. Causal-Mechanical Explanation: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses in Anthropological Explanation

Citation: Kuznar, Lawrence A. and Kenneth Long (2008) Deductive-Nomological vs. Causal-Mechanical Explanation: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses in Anthropological Explanation. In Against the Grain: The Vayda Tradition in Human Ecology and Ecological Anthropology, edited by Bradley B. Walters, Bonnie J. MacKay, Paige West and Susan Lees, pp. 159-173. AltaMira, Lanham, MD (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Deductive-Nomological vs. Causal-Mechanical Explanation: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses in Anthropological Explanation
Tagged:

Summary

Kuznar and Long believe that archaeological explanations must use a combination of specific causal mechanisms and generalizable laws. This is because society and culture aren't always presented in concrete physical ways. Therefore, using only generalizable laws, such as under the Hempelian model, can't capture or accurately explain more abstract social things.

The problem with previous versions of explanation, like the Hempelian model, is that when applied to relatively young fields like archaeology, is that it is possible to jump to hasty generalizations. This is problematic for archaeology, especially as minority and indigenous groups are becoming increasingly involved in the process of archaeological research.

Causality also has problems, specifically its reliance on counterfactual statements. However, even Hempel acknowledges that causality is not horribly different his mode of explanation, in that even causal processes occasionally make use of generalizable laws. Since each method, which have traditionally been placed on opposite ends of the spectrum, can resolve some of the problems with the alternate method, Kuznar and Long believe they should be used in conjunction to create a flexible explanatory approach for archaeology.