In the article ” Digital History’s Perpetual Future Tense” by Cameron Blevins discusses the gap that has been developing between digital history and academic argument-driven scholarship.  He discusses the limitations of quantitative history and compares the historian to a scientist with running “experiments, test hypotheses and [reaching] empirically verifiable conclusions”.  He also discusses that digital historians are eager in distancing themselves from quantitative historians before them due to this viewpoint. An interesting point that Cameron Blevins makes is that digital history began with archival collections, and digitization of certain sources. He also points out that public history was the “most influential and enduring” genealogical strand that helped with digital history’s emergence in the 1990s. Blevins makes and argument that in digital history needs to reengage with argumentation because “making arguments is a fundamentally valuable and necessary way to further our collective understanding of the past”. This is because usually when people use digital history is only in researching for sources to use.  Blevins also makes the argument that ‘academic argumentation is still a crucial means of advancing a conversation about the past” which should be done, or else some events will be lost.