Catmull: Although historians consider themselves to be social scientists, different historians never arrive at the same conclusions about specific events of the past. Thus historians never determine what actually happened; like novelists, they merely create interesting fictional stories about the many different problems that people have faced. The reasoning in Catmull's argument is flawed because the argument ["presumes, without providing justification, that unless historians' conclusions are objectively true, they have no value whatsoever", 'bases its conclusion on premises that contradict each other', 'draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion', 'concludes, solely on the basis of the claim that different people have reached different conclusions about a topic, that none of these conclusions is true']