Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 185, Issue 3, pp 411–427 | Cite as

Inference to the best explanation: does it track truth?

  • David H. Glass
Article

Abstract

In the form of inference known as inference to the best explanation there are various ways to characterise what is meant by the best explanation. This paper considers a number of such characterisations including several based on confirmation measures and several based on coherence measures. The goal is to find a measure which adequately captures what is meant by ‘best’ and which also yields the truth with a high degree of probability. Computer simulations are used to show that the overlap coherence measure achieves this goal, enabling the true explanation to be identified almost as often as an approach which simply selects the most probable explanation. Further advantages to this approach are also considered in the case where there is uncertainty in the prior probability distribution.

Keywords

Explanation Truth Uncertainty Bayesianism Coherence Confirmation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angere S. (2007) The defeasible nature of coherentist justification. Synthese 157: 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angere S. (2008) Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117(465): 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Chajewska, U., & Halpern, J. Y. (1997). Defining explanation in probabilistic systems. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 62–71).Google Scholar
  5. Douven I. (1999) Inference to the best explanation made coherent. Philosophy of Science 66: S424–S435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitelson B. (1999) The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66: S362–S378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glass, D. H. (2002). Coherence, explanation and Bayesian networks. In M. O’Neill et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and cognitive science. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2464, pp. 177–182). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Glass D. H. (2007) Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation. Synthese 157: 275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lipton P. (2004) Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. McGrew T. (2003) Confirmation, heuristics and explanatory reasoning. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 553–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Okasha S. (2000) Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Science 31: 691–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Olsson E. J. (2002) What is the problem of coherence and truth? Journal of Philosophy 99: 246–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Psillos, S. (2004). Inference to the best explanation and Bayesianism. In F. Stadler (Ed.), Institute of Vienna circle yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 83–91). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Shogenji T. (1999) Is coherence truth-conducive? Analysis 59: 338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Treagar M. (2004) Using explanatory factors in induction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 505–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Fraassen B. C. (1989) Laws and symmetry. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weisberg J. (2009) Locating IBE in the Bayesian framework. Synthese 167: 125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and Mathematics, University of UlsterNewtownabbeyUK

Personalised recommendations