Difference between revisions of "Smoking gun"
(Creating page) |
m (fixing ref) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''Smoking gun''' is an evidentiary trace (or subcollection of traces) that unambiguously descriminates one [[hypothesis]] from among a set of currently available rival hypotheses as providing "[[Inference to the Best Explanation|the best explanation]]" of the traces thus far observed.<ref name="Cleland">{{Cite journal |
| author=Cleland, C.E. | | author=Cleland, C.E. | ||
| title=Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science | | title=Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf | | url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf | ||
| accessdate = 25.1.2012 | | accessdate = 25.1.2012 | ||
| − | }}</ref> It is always possible that future [[scientific observation|observations]] or theoretical developments will depose a | + | }}</ref> It is always possible that future [[scientific observation|observations]] or [[theory|theoretical]] developments will depose a smoking gun and that another hypothesis (new or old) will attain status of ''[[Inference to the Best Explanation|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 of past events is not possible and [[Scientific testing|testing]] of hypothesis producing supporting [[scientific evidence|evidence]] might be obscure. A [[Scientific research|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'".<ref>{{cite |title=Night Comes to the Cretaceous |author=James Powell |publisher=Harcourt Brace |place=San Diego |year=1998 |pages=115 |isbn=978-01560-07030 |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=no&id=eVG8lX8XnWoC |quote=One could describe this result using the tiresome metaphor of "smoking gun"...}}</ref> | + | 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'"''.<ref>{{cite book|title=Night Comes to the Cretaceous |author=James Powell |publisher=Harcourt Brace |place=San Diego |year=1998 |pages=115 |isbn=978-01560-07030 |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=no&id=eVG8lX8XnWoC |quote=One could describe this result using the tiresome metaphor of "smoking gun"...}}</ref> |
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 03:36, December 1, 2015
Smoking gun is an 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 smoking 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 of past events is not possible and testing of hypothesis producing supporting evidence might be 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 (1998). Night Comes to the Cretaceous. Harcourt Brace, 115. ISBN 978-01560-07030. “One could describe this result using the tiresome metaphor of "smoking gun"...”