英语翻译The reader should now be in a position to understand som

英语翻译
The reader should now be in a position to understand something of the sources of disagreement among historians.Historians arrive at different conclusions because they have different notions about human motivation and different ideas about what constitutes necessary and sufficient cause.Historical facts as such have no intrinsic meaning; they take on meaning and significance only when they are organized and presented by historians with a particular point of view.The well-used phrase “let the facts speak for themselves” therefore has no real meaning.The facts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they,and not the facts,are doing the speaking.
By shifting our analysis from the historians’ conclusions to their assumptions,we are in a better position to evaluate their work.To be sure,we still cannot eliminate all disagreement.If the state of our knowledge were such that it provided us with a model of unquestioned validity that completely explained human behavior,we could employ this model to explain our data.Any analysis that began by assuming a different model or explanation would therefore be wrong.
But since we do not have such a complete and foolproof explanation,disagreements are destined to remain.For the readers who have been patient enough to follow the argument to this point,the conclusions stated here may appear somewhat dismal and unrewarding.This,however,is unwarranted.For at this stage students are no longer simply memorizing details; nor are they attempting to evaluate a historical essay by trying to discover whether each of the facts presented is true.They can now ask more important questions of the material before them.Are the premises form which historians begin adequate explanations of human behavior?Do the facts they present really flow from their premises and support their conclusions?Are there other data historians ignored that would tend to undermine their arguments and throw doubt on the adequacy of their premises?

读者应该现在是了解某事源泉的分歧在史学家之中.史学家到达在不同的结论因为他们有不同的概念关于人的刺激和不同的想法关于什么构成必要和充足的起因.历史事实象这样没有内在意思; 他们承担意思和意义只当他们由史学家组织和提出以一个特殊观点.很好半新词组"没有让事实讲话为他们自己" 有因此真正的意思.事实不讲话为他们自己; 史学家使用事实在一个特殊方式和因此他们,并且不是事实,做着讲.由转移我们的分析从史学家的结论到他们的假定,我们是在一个更好的位置评估他们的工作.当然,我们无法仍然消灭所有分歧.如果我们的知识状态是这样它提供我们以完全地解释人类行为不容置疑的有效性的模型,我们能使用这个模型解释我们的数据.开始由承担一个另外模型或解释的任一分析会是因此错误的.但因为我们没有这样一个完全和极简单解释,分歧是注定的依然是.为是足够耐心跟随论据对这点的读者,结论陈述这里也许出现有些忧郁和不报答.这,然而,是无保证的.为学生简单地不再在这个状况下记住细节; 亦不是他们试图评估一篇历史杂文由设法发现是否每个事实被提出是真实的.他们能现在问材料的更加重要的问题在他们之前.前提史学家开始人类行为的充分解释是的形式?事实他们真正地提出流程从他们的前提和支持他们的结论吗?有会倾向于破坏他们的论据和投掷疑义在他们的前提充足是的其它数据史学家被忽略?