Counterfactual History: Three Worries and Replies

Abstract This article aims to shed light on what lies at the heart of skepticism towards counterfactual, alternative, or what-if history. On its face, counterfactual history gives historians and philosophers good reason worry. First, because pasts leave no traces, lack an important source empirical warrant. Second, rewriting historical events might unpredictably change past, inferences about have happened seem only weakly supported by generalizations actually did happen. Third, narratives appear especially vulnerable wishful thinking. Ultimately, through consideration epistemic values that regulate construction narratives, I marshal arguments against these objections defend legitimacy project. Still, hope show far from being a mere ‘parlor game’, raises deep provocative questions historians’ ability know our some which address here.