On Thursday I asked:

Among academics who focus on particular times other than our own, far more focus on past than future times.  Why?   

Among the 24 comments a great many creative explanations were offered.  But:

I find it striking that most everyone seems to think it reasonably obvious that we should expect more study of history than the future, and yet people offer widely differing explanations for this phenomena.

This is a common and interesting situation: people offering divergent explanations of a conclusion on which they mostly agree.  This suggests to me that they do not really know why they believe this conclusion.  But does that fact suggest anything about how reasonable is their conclusion?