具体如下：
大多数学生通常是通过一本厚厚的教科书来学习历史的，他们很快就会沉浸在浩瀚的人名、日期、事件和统计数字的海洋中。然后通过考试测试学生的技能，考试要求学生显示他们记住了多少数据；他们记得越多，成绩就越高。
从这段经历中，一些结论似乎显而易见：研究历史就是研究关于过去的“事实”；你知道的“事实”越多，你作为历史专业的学生就越好。专业历史学家只是一个汇集了大量“事实”的人。
因此，当学生们发现历史学家们即使在处理同一事件时也往往存在尖锐的分歧时，他们往往会感到困惑。他们对这种情况的常识反应是，一位历史学家是对的，另一位是错的。想必，错了的历史学家会把他们的“事实”弄错。
然而，这种情况很少发生。历史学家通常都有合理且有说服力的论点。而且，“事实”——名字、日期、事件、统计数字——通常都是正确的。此外，他们经常发现，有争议的历史学家在事实上或多或少是一致的；也就是说，它们使用的数据几乎相同。
他们得出不同的结论是因为他们从不同的角度看待过去。历史，似乎是一个刻板的记忆“事实”的问题，现在变成了在众多解释形式中选择一种好的解释形式的问题。历史真相成了个人偏好的问题。
这个职位很难令人满意。他们不禁感到，关于一件事的两种截然相反的观点不可能都是对的；然而，他们缺乏在两者之间做出决定的能力。要理解历史学家为什么不同意，学生必须考虑一个他们或多或少地认为理所当然的问题。
他们必须扪心自问历史到底是什么。从最广泛的意义上讲，历史指的是人类过去的全部。更受限制的概念是，历史是有记录的过去，即人类生活中留下某种记录的部分，如民间故事、文物或书面文件。最后，历史可以定义为历史学家对过去的描述。
当然，这三种意义是相关的。历史学家必须以人们留下的历史遗迹为基础进行叙述。显然，他们不可能知道一切，原因很简单，不是每一件事，每一件事都被完整地记录下来。因此，历史学家充其量只能粗略估计历史。
没有人能声称已经完成了这项任务。但这还不够。如果历史学家不能知道所有的事情，因为不是所有的事情都被记录下来，那么他们也不会使用所有可用的记录。相反，他们只选择那些他们认为最重要的记录。
原文：
Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates,events and statistics. The students' skills are then tested by examinations that require them to show how much of the data they remember; the more they remember, the higher their grades.
From this experience a number of conclusions seem obvious: the study of history is the study of "facts" about the past; the more "facts"you know,the better you are as a student of history. The professional historian is simply one who brings together a very large number of "facts".
Therefore students often become confused upon discovering that historians often disagree sharply even when they are dealing withe the same event. Their common-sense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian is right while the other is wrong. And presumably, historians who are wrong will have their "facts" wrong.
This is seldom the case, however. Historians usually all argue reasonably and persuasively. And, the "facts"---the names,dates, events, statistics--ussally turn out to be correct. Moreover, they often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is , they use much the same data.
They come to different conclusions because they view the past form a different perspective. History, which seemed to be a cut-and -dried matter of memorizing "facts," now becomes a matter of choosing one good interpretation form among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.
This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposedpoints of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them. To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted.
They must ask themselves what history really is . In its broadest sense, history denotes the whole of the human past. More restricted is the notion that history is the recorded past, that is , that part of human life which has left some sort of record such as folk tales, artifacts, or written documents. Finally, history may be defined as that which historians write about the past.
Of course the three meanings are related. Historians must base their accounts on the remains of the past, left by people. Obviously they cannot know everything for the simple reason that not every event, every happening, was fully and completely recorded. Therefore the historian can only approximate history at best.
No one can ever claim to have concluded the quest. But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not everything was recorded, neither do they use all the records that are available to them. Rather, they select only those records they deem most significant.