Explaining things is a well-known part of both history and everyday life. But what comprises good and bad explanations is rarely explicitly discussed, even though we live in the midst of an overwhelming mass of competing approaches and theories. This can be irritating at times and gives rise to the thought that it is useless to search for the "real" explanation of a historical event or to inquire about the objectivity of some historical insight. But can we really do without the aspiration to get to true bottom of things? In this volume Robert Schnepf develops many arguments against forfeiting the demand for truth and provides criteria that can be used to differentiate between good and bad explanations.

Explaining things is a well-known part of both history and everyday life. But what comprises good and bad explanations is rarely explicitly discussed, even though we live in the midst of an overwhelming mass of competing approaches and theories. This can be irritating at times and gives rise to the thought that it is useless to search for the "real" explanation of a historical event or to inquire about the objectivity of some historical insight. But can we really do without the aspiration to get to true bottom of things? In this volume Robert Schnepf develops many arguments against forfeiting the demand for truth and provides criteria that can be used to differentiate between good and bad explanations.

Explaining things is a well-known part of both history and everyday life. But what comprises good and bad explanations is rarely explicitly discussed, even though we live in the midst of an overwhelming mass of competing approaches and theories. This can be irritating at times and gives rise to the thought that it is useless to search for the "real" explanation of a historical event or to inquire about the objectivity of some historical insight. But can we really do without the aspiration to get to true bottom of things? In this volume Robert Schnepf develops many arguments against forfeiting the demand for truth and provides criteria that can be used to differentiate between good and bad explanations.