Essays criticizing the theoretical basis and methodology of ‘new history’, including social history, psychohistory, quantification, and work driven by socialist theory. Each violates the principle of deriving explanations of the past from its base of evidence. The social sciences, whatever their merits, are often unsuitable for considering the ‘things that really matter’ to a given topic. The opening chapters on social history (e.g., Annalisme) and socialist history are most persuasive, as there are several decades of output to evaluate. Interesting but inconclusive discussion of the idea of progress, which takes the reader toward the territory of philosophy of history.