Agreed. A big part of why I enjoy thinking about historical problems so much is that it's virtually impossible to supply a definitive explanation for anything (

Agreed. A big part of why I enjoy thinking about historical problems so much is that it's virtually impossible to supply a definitive explanation for anything (we're still arguing over the Roman empire's demise one and a half millennia on). I think the author's point - or at least the stance I take, which I suspect he aligns generally with too based on his work - is that quantitive data can only be used in historical arguments in what is effectively a qualitative way, i.e. as part of a larger, holistic assessment based on many perspectives rather than as a definitive "proof" of anything. But it's an exciting addition because historians typically haven't taken this approach at all prior to the last decade, excepting some forays into punchcard computing in the 60s and 70s by people like Lawrence Stone and the Annalists. Incidentally, I'd point to Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature" book as an example of the risks of putting too much stock in a scientific/econometric approach to history. I actually think his argument is (in broad outlines) convincing, but the way he marshals his evidence drives academic historians crazy because it ignores that history is a complex system, as you say. (i.e., he does things like saying "x tribe in New Guinea is a 'stone age' tribe and according to one or two studies has a high murder rate, therefore all humans in 'the stone age' had a murder rate comparable to that tribe.")