History is rather like the Rorschach ink-blot used by psychologists: its interpretation reveals more than anything else the assumptions and mind-set of the observer. The overwhelming tendency of analysts who try to derive general laws from social history is to find confirmation for their preexisting beliefs—especially given the intense feelings which (as we previously observed) are often tied in with human action. Historical "proof" is the ideal methodology for anyone with an axe to grind.

Although some conclude that history is by nature a subjective field, it is possible for historians to be objective. In order to arrive at objective interpretations of events, however, they must bring to bear principles that are not dependent on social history itself—principles based on sound logical thinking and drawn from other fields, including praxeology. Even then, because of the multiplicity of causes involved in any historical event, there may often be legitimate differences of opinion regarding the primary causes of a particular event. Determining the correct application of objective principles to an actual historical situation is often a difficult matter of judgment.