 If Collingwood’s philosophy of history is an attempt to identify the distinctive subject matter of history and the logical form of historical judgements, then his metaphilosophy should be understood as defending a form of explanatory pluralism, not a form of historical relativism (D’Oro 2018b). The latter claims that belief systems are beyond criticism because truth and falsity are relative to what certain people, at certain times, believe to be true. The former, by contrast, claims that different kinds of explanations are answers to different kinds of questions and that the task of philosophical analysis is to undo the conceptual knots in which we get tangled when we fail to order our thoughts with due care. This of course is an interpretative claim that advocates of the radical conversion hypothesis (see section 2.3 above) are likely to deny insofar as they tend to read Collingwood’s metaphilosophy as articulating not a defence of the autonomy of philosophy, but as dissolving philosophy into a descriptive study of the belief systems that different people had through time.