This article aims to shed light on what lies at the heart of skepticism towards counterfactual, alternative, or what-if history. On its face, counterfactual history gives historians and philosophers good reason to worry. First, because counterfactual pasts leave no traces, historians lack an important source of empirical warrant. Second, because rewriting historical events might unpredictably change the past, inferences about what might have happened seem only weakly supported by generalizations about what actually did happen. Third, counterfactual narratives appear especially vulnerable to wishful thinking. Ultimately, through consideration of the epistemic values that regulate the construction of counterfactual narratives, I marshal arguments against these objections and defend the legitimacy of the project. Still, I hope to show that far from being a mere ‘parlor game’, counterfactual history raises deep and provocative questions about historians’ ability to know our past, only some of which I address here.

中文翻译：

---

反事实史：三忧三答

本文旨在阐明对反事实、替代或假设历史持怀疑态度的核心是什么。从表面上看，反事实历史让历史学家和哲学家有充分的理由担心。首先，因为反事实的过去不留痕迹，历史学家缺乏经验依据的重要来源。其次，因为重写历史事件可能会不可预测地改变过去，所以对可能发生的事情的推论似乎只能得到对实际发生的事情的概括的微弱支持。第三，反事实的叙述似乎特别容易受到一厢情愿的想法的影响。最终，通过考虑规范反事实叙事构建的认知价值，我整理了反对这些反对意见的论据，并捍卫了该项目的合法性。仍然，