Why did historians object to using universal laws as the main way to explain history?

Historians and philosophers have long debated the use of universal laws—often called the covering law theory—to explain historical events. Critics, such as R.G. Collingwood and Benedetto Croce, argued that applying scientific, law-based models to history was a fundamental error that failed to respect the unique nature of human affairs.1

The primary objections to using universal laws include:

• Irreducible Particularity: Many historians argue that historical events possess an "irreducible particularity" that cannot be captured by general uniformities or regularities.1
• Human Agency and Meaning: Critics contend that history is best understood by examining the intentions, beliefs, and purposes of self-conscious agents. Rather than seeking general laws, historians often aim to "re-enact" or imaginatively reconstruct the past thinking of individuals to show why their actions were "appropriate" within their specific context.1
• Contextual Reality: Scholars influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein and others argue that historical behavior must be understood through the specific social conventions, ideas, and languages that defined the reality of the participants, rather than through external, objective causal patterns.1

Consequently, these critics reject the positivist view that history must mirror the methods of the natural sciences to be considered rational.1