Since Diltay drew a line between understanding and explanation which led to the distinction between human sciences and natural sciences, understanding was afflicted by a relative tendency in the field of human sciences. Diltay was well-aware of this shortcoming; however his efforts and approaches were not applied. Gadamer attempted to confine mentality by means of mentality by raising the dialogue between the subject and object (in the field of human sciences); however, he was affected by relativity either. Ricor's idea is a step forward. He demonstrated that the existence of an objective meaning in the context is a sign that human sciences is far away from the mentality and relativity of philosophical hermeneutics. Although Ricor's definition of explanation (as constructional explanation) differs from Diltay and positivist's definition (as casual explanation), an absolute confirmation of Ricor's idea – natural sciences being parallel with human sciences-seems inappropriate; however, his effort to bring objectivity to the human sciences is admirable.
Hassani, H. R. (2006). The Relationship between Understanding and Explanation in Human and Natural Sciences. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12(47), 94-114.
MLA
Hamid Reza Hassani. "The Relationship between Understanding and Explanation in Human and Natural Sciences". Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12, 47, 2006, 94-114.
HARVARD
Hassani, H. R. (2006). 'The Relationship between Understanding and Explanation in Human and Natural Sciences', Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12(47), pp. 94-114.
VANCOUVER
Hassani, H. R. The Relationship between Understanding and Explanation in Human and Natural Sciences. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2006; 12(47): 94-114.
)