Let's dive into an exciting adventure, full of traces of the past, insightful historians, and the quest for objective knowledge. Imagine historians as detectives, each piecing together a unique puzzle of the past. How they do it, and the methods they use, have sparked quite some debate!

Can our detective-historian see these traces of the past just as they are, as objective remnants? Or does their interpretation inevitably have a subjective flavor?

It's like you're trying to remember what you ate for dinner last night. You might remember the taste of the pizza, the sound of the rain outside, and the show you were watching. But, will your friend recall the same experience? Perhaps they remember the burned crust of the pizza, the annoying drip of a leaky roof, and the show being a total snooze-fest. So, which account is "correct"?

This is where the historian's role becomes tricky: discerning between subjective and objective interpretations of the past. How do we know what's a fact and what's an opinion?

Remember the infamous "Battle of the Bands"? Let's look at the "Battle of the Historians":

• Carr believed that complete objectivity was impossible because historians inevitably bring their personal perspectives into their interpretation.
• Berlin, on the other hand, said that if historians used the right method, objectivity was achievable.
• Elton said historians should throw a wide net, gather empirical evidence, and analyze it objectively, much like scientists.

Like three different recipes for the same dish, each historian had their unique approach to deciphering the past. But, can you guess the common ingredient in all three recipes? It's the pursuit of truth!