Abstract

Philosophers of history can be divided into two schools, the realist/ empiricist and the instrumentalist/ constructionist. Both accept that the evidence of the past is given. The "myth of evidence," however, obscures the problematic character of description and prediction as essential activities of historians and archaeologists. To choose between competing claims about a particular event one does not choose between the individual descriptions. Rather, one chooses those narratives with the wider network of truth statements and predictive powers. Once the "myth of evidence" is dispelled, the philosophy of history should provide analyses and programs of data-description and prediction