 He credited Nagel with consolidating the rival insights of logical positivism and pragmatism, demonstrating how four different kinds of explanation function in different types of inquiry, refuting the view that science does nothing more than describe "sequences of phenomena", and convincingly criticizing Berlin.However, he argued that Nagel's account of science was strained and that some of Nagel's views were unclear.He believed that Nagel was less successful in discussing sociology and history than he was in discussing the natural sciences.