Difference between revisions of "Smoking gun"
(Creating page) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 03:27, December 1, 2015
"Smoking gun" is a evidentiary trace (or subcollection of traces) that unambiguously descriminates one hypothesis from among a set of currently available rival hypotheses as providing "the best explanation" of the traces thus far observed.[1] It is always possible that future observations or theoretical developments will depose a smiking gun and that another hypothesis (new or old) will attain status of the best explanation. Some of the factors that go into transforming a trace(s) into a smoking gun for a particular hypothesis may be sociological or psychological, especially in the field of historical science where direct observation is not possible and testing of hypothesis producing supporting evidence is obscure. A search for a smoking gun may also turn up evidence against a target hypothesis.
Some historical scientists use the term "smoking gun" very losely and rampantly in their informal and popular works to degree that it became a subject of criticism by James Powell who refers to it as to the "tiresome methafor of 'smoking gun'".[2]
References
- ↑ Cleland, C.E. (September 2002). "Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science" (PDF). Philosophy of Science 69: 474–496. http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf. Retrieved 25.1.2012.
- ↑ James Powell, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, Harcourt Brace, [[{{{date}}}]].