The correlational studies demonstrate that experts with strong theoretical commitments to a covering law and cognitive-stylistic preferences for explanatory closure are more likely to reject close-call Counterfactual that imply that “already explained” historical outcomes could easily have taken radically different forms.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/poking-counterfactual-holes-in-covering-laws-cognitive-styles-and-historical-reasoning/7FF1D86D9C975C36A906956D75A39A0A#
