Why can historians disagree about the causes of the same historical event?

Historians often disagree about the causes of historical events because historical inquiry is not a purely empirical science that relies on universal laws. Instead, the process of explaining the past involves complex interpretive choices that can lead to divergent conclusions.123

Several factors contribute to these disagreements:

• Interpretive Frameworks: Historians must select and weigh evidence from a vast mass of material. This process requires forming judgments about relative importance, which are often influenced by the historian's own critical standards, moral perspectives, or political standpoints.3
• Nature of Explanation: There is no consensus on what constitutes a "true" historical explanation. Some historians focus on the intentions and rational deliberations of past actors, while others emphasize large-scale social structures or unintended consequences. Because these explanations are often plausible rather than logically compelling, they remain open to debate.2
• Narrative Construction: Historical writing involves "emplotted" narratives. As noted by Hayden White, the same set of events can be interpreted through different metaphors or plots—such as viewing an event as a comedy or a romance—resulting in multiple, yet empirically supported, histories.2
• Subjectivity: Unlike the natural sciences, historical procedures are often governed by culturally determined predilections that are essentially contestable.3