But how do historians know when their research is "complete?" How do they know to search one collection of letters rather than another? These questions point up the misconception at the heart of the everyday view of history.

The author's point seems to be that the accuracy of history depends on the historian's ability to identify the most relevant and accurate information. No doubt, that is true; however, the authors make it sound as though the historian is completely at the mercy of whatever evidence he or she happens to find or whatever evidence happens to be available. I would argue that in their analysis, the authors fail to address the fundamentally important issue of good faith on the part of the historian. In that respect, all historians are limited by the amount and quality of information that is available. However, the types of historical discrepancies outlined by the authors are more attributable to biases than to the limits of the information that is available.

Certainly, the historian may, despite his best efforts, overlook relevant information; likewise, every historian is entitled to editorialize when he presents his account of history. However, the discipline of History imposes the obligation to make...

Only after devoting equal effort to identifying all of the available information, regardless of what view it may support, and only after distinguishing between raw data and subjective editorializing may the reporter with integrity supplement the historical record with personal analyses.
In principle, that also represents the fundamental difference between science and religion. Specifically, the former is based on the deliberate attempt to falsify any proposed conclusion before accepting it as truth. Religion is the antithesis of that process because it sets out supposed facts that cannot be falsified or, in some cases, even questioned. Whereas science seeks to limit its propositions to those that withstand falsification, religion opposes any such attempt and instructs believers to accept a priori propositions. To a critical observer, that would appear to be explained by the fact that religion is largely intended to provide psychological comfort to those afraid of confronting unpleasant truths, such as the finite nature of human life in particular.