No. The answers people get are what they arrive at when they stop investigating. Some answers are manifestly false and others manifestly true, but history can't be reduced to provable equations. It has as much of art to it as science. I have indicated some of the reasons why one interpretation must be prefered to another, but it's more productive to regard theories more as working hypotheses than as dogmas. Some interpretations are manifestly absurd -- I'd put some of the neo-confederate interpretations in that category -- but investigation goes on and on. There's always something new to be found and historians pride themselves on coming up with interpretations that are new, original, and yet true to the facts.
You may put down Epperson, but until reputable academic historians deign to dispose of DiLorenzo's mishmash, Epperson does bring together many of DiLorenzo's dubious points. Readers are at liberty to evaluate the criticisms as they see fit, but they do indicate a sloppiness in DiLorenzo's work, which others can examine at greater length.
And understand, too, that the article by McPherson that you link to is a popularization and a simplification of his work, which is more complex and nuanced. There may be better historians out there, but DiLorenzo doesn't hit the mark. The best I can say, is that as a historian, DiLorenzo may be a passable economist.
Not if Epperson's critique itself is of dubious validity.
Readers are at liberty to evaluate the criticisms as they see fit, but they do indicate a sloppiness in DiLorenzo's work,
Not necessarily. The fact that Epperson calls DiLorenzo's work sloppy and even alleges cases of sloppiness does not indicate much of anything about DiLorenzo when Epperson's own critique is thoroughly flawed and historically inaccurate itself.
And understand, too, that the article by McPherson that you link to is a popularization and a simplification of his work
Sure it is, but it is also an article in which McPherson makes several very direct and supposedly "factual" assertions. My contention is that many of those assertions are in error.