Alex Rosenberg’s latest book purports to establish that narrative history cannot have any epistemic value. Rosenberg argues not for the replacement of narrative history by something more science-like, but rather the end of histories understood as an account of human doings under a certain description. This review critiques three of his main arguments: 1) narrative history must root its explanations in folk psychology, 2) there are no beliefs nor desires guiding human action, and 3) historical narratives are morally and ethically pernicious. Rosenberg’s book reprises themes about action explanation he first rehearsed 40 years ago, albeit with neuroscience rather than sociobiology now “preempting” explanations that trade on folk psychological notions. Although Rosenberg’s argument strategy has not altered, the review develops a number of reasons as to why his approach now lacks any plausibility as a strategy for explaining histories, much less a successful one.

亚历克斯·罗森伯格 (Alex Rosenberg) 的最新著作旨在确立叙事历史不能具有任何认识论价值。罗森伯格不主张用更像科学的东西代替叙事历史，而是主张结束历史被理解为在某种描述下对人类行为的描述。这篇评论批评了他的三个主要论点：1）叙事历史必须植根于民间心理学，2）没有信仰或欲望指导人类行为，3）历史叙事在道德和伦理上都是有害的。Rosenberg 的书重述了他 40 年前首次排练的关于行动解释的主题，尽管现在用神经科学而不是社会生物学来“抢占”以民间心理学概念为基础的解释。尽管罗森伯格的论证策略没有改变，但该评论提出了许多原因，说明为什么他的方法现在作为解释历史的策略缺乏任何合理性，更不用说成功的策略了。