, Volume 79, Issue 1, pp 55–64 | Cite as

Is the Bad Lot Objection Just Misguided?

  • Jonah N. Schupbach
Original Article


In this paper, I argue that van Fraassen’s “bad lot objection” against Inference to the Best Explanation [IBE] severely misses its mark. First, I show that the objection holds no special relevance to IBE; if the bad lot objection poses a serious problem for IBE, then it poses a serious problem for any inference form whatever. Second, I argue that, thankfully, it does not pose a serious threat to any inference form. Rather, the objection misguidedly blames a form of inference for not achieving what it never set out to achieve in the first place.


Good Explanation Material Content Material Defect Explanatory Hypothesis Inference Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Special thanks to David Danks, John Earman, Edouard Machery, and Anya Plutynski for helpful conversation and criticism pertaining to this paper.


  1. Douven, I. (2002). Testing inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 130, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Douven, I. (2011). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. March 2011 edition.Google Scholar
  3. Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction: Insight and trial, Vol. 2 of A practical logic of cognitive systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Kuipers, T. (1992). Naive and refined truth approximation. Synthese, 93, 299–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuipers, T. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lipton, P. (1993). Is the best good enough? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93, 89–104.Google Scholar
  7. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: The epistemological and eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning, Vol. 3 of Cognitive systems monographs. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Musgrave, A. (1988). The ultimate argument for scientific realism. In R. Nola (Ed.), Relativism and realism in science (pp. 229–252). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and symmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations