ABSTRACT
This chapter considers two purported refutations of Verstehen based primarily on the Anti-Verification Criticism (AVC), one by Theodore Abel and one by Richard Rudner. It criticizes two defenses of Verification Thesis (VT), one by Peter Munch and one by Michael Scriven. To what extent these methodologists are committed to a Verstehen approach to understanding or to the positivist program cannot be inferred from their advocacy of either VT or AVC. Verstehen can be used to validate hypotheses under restricted conditions. In such cases Verstehen can be used as part of an analogical argument that yields probable conclusions. This interpretation would probably be accepted by advocates of AVC. Verstehen, as Scriven seems to understand it, does not by itself verify hypotheses in either science or history. It is true that Verstehen combined with independent established knowledge, namely, the reliability of someone's past empathetic insights, does enable hypotheses to be verified.
