Objectivity and Access to the Past

I am inclined to agree with Mark Bevir's critique of the limits of a relativistic view of history and the question of access to the past. It seems that if historians accept the unreachable nature of a purely objective accounts of history on which to base induction and arguments, a method such as Bevir's is appropriate. Access to the past and comparison with that past is the most apparent method of historical discourse but if we can not comprehend the historicity of that past, other methods must be developed. Bevir argues that access, or not, to the past does not necessarily mean historical objectivity is an impossibility. Instead, Bevir endeavors to use present conditions and understanding, along with comparison to elucidate historical subjects and judge the merit of arguments. Furthermore, I agree with Bevir that to create a truly objective understanding of history one can not rely on empiricist refutation or affirmation of an argument. This comparative way of viewing history is some ways similar to the idea of the "ideal observer" standing outside the influences of temporally bound observers and able to make qualified and objective statements. Bevir's method of attempting historical objectivity does not require super-human abilities of perception, though. By admitting that we can only "accept things as correct on the basis of rationally justified criteria" Bevir allows historical objectivity to flow from comparison rather than an abstract value of unqualified historical truth.