历史相对论的论点主要针对历史与自然的关系问题——一个世纪以来这差不多已成为历史性质问题的争论中心。它实际上做的就是指出实证主义不能算是历史的“科学”,并证明历史的方法在某些主要方面是和自然科学根本不相适应的。德雷和兰戴尔对于由这个信念所产生的某些困难问题的解决,都有很大的贡献。他们都承认历史的自主性,都很深刻地阐明了历史有其本身独特的途径。但两人都不相信历史与自然科学的差别就会使我们有理由为前者担心,或者使历史家的工作陷于特别的无能。两人都抱有一种知识观,认为各种形态的知识之间并没有什么根本的冲突,愿意承认和接受这些知识的各自特殊性。我们有种种理由相信,如果从这一观点来看历史,那么历史相对论所强调的许多障碍,将会显得或者实际不存在,或者并无历史相对论所指出的认识论意义。罗登斯特莱契则承认历史知识并不是任意的,在历史研究的领域中有充分广阔的园地可以进行内涵的批判和理性的取舍。在他看来,如果历史中最后存在着某些局限性的话,这主要决不是由于个别历史家的偏颇和特殊的眼光,因为这些眼光本身就是由一切历史知识的局限性造成的。最充分的客观性只有在认识者与被认识者,知识与知识对象之间截然有别时,才有可能。但在历史知识中,决不可能做到这样的区别。 The argument of historical relativity focuses mainly on the question of the relationship between history and nature - a centuries-old dispute that has almost become a matter of historical nature. What it actually does is point out that positivism can not be regarded as the “science” of history and that the method of history, in some major respects, is fundamentally incompatible with the natural sciences. Dre and Randall have contributed greatly to the solution of some difficult problems arising from this conviction. They all acknowledge the autonomy of history and profoundly explain the unique ways in which history has its own uniqueness. However, neither believe that the difference between history and natural science will give us reason to worry about the former or to impoverish the historian’s work in particular incompetence. Both hold the view of knowledge that there is no fundamental conflict between the various forms of knowledge and are willing to recognize and accept the particularities of these knowledge. We have a variety of reasons to believe that if history is viewed from this perspective, then many of the obstacles highlighted by historical relativity will appear to be either practically non-existent or epistemologically significant as indicated by historical relativity. Rosenstrasse admits that historical knowledge is not arbitrary, and there is a vast field in the field of historical studies that can critically criticize and rationalize the connotation. In his view, if there were some limitations in history at the last, this was by no means due to the biased and special eyes of individual historians who themselves were caused by the limitations of all historical knowledge. The fullest objectivity is possible only when there is a sharp contrast between the acquaintance and the acquaintance, the object of knowledge and the object of knowledge. But in the historical knowledge, it is impossible to make such a difference.