Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 6, pp 975–995

Inference to the best explanation, coherence and other explanatory virtues

Article

Abstract

This article generalizes the explanationist account of inference to the best explanation (IBE). It draws a clear distinction between IBE and abduction and presents abduction as the first step of IBE. The second step amounts to the evaluation of explanatory power, which consist in the degree of explanatory virtues that a hypothesis exhibits. Moreover, even though coherence is the most often cited explanatory virtue, on pain of circularity, it should not be treated as one of the explanatory virtues. Rather, coherence should be equated with explanatory power and considered to be derivable from the other explanatory virtues: unification, explanatory depth and simplicity.

Keywords

Inference to the best explanation Abduction Explanatory virtues Coherence Unification Explanatory depth Simplicity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aliseda, A. (1997). Seeking explanations: Abduction in logic, philosophy of science and artificial intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  2. Aliseda A. (2006) Abductive reasoning, Vol. 330 of synthese library. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes E. (1995) Inference to the loveliest explanation. Synthese 103(2): 251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartelborth T. (1999) Coherence and explanations. Erkenntnis 50(2–3): 209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartelborth T. (2002) Explanatory unification. Synthese 130(1): 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebe J. R. (2009) The abductivist reply to skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79(3): 605–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BonJour L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Campos D. G. (2009) On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the best explanation. Synthese 180(3): 419–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrier M. (2009) Underdetermination as an epistemological test tube: Expounding hidden values of the scientific community. Synthese 180(2): 189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carruthers P. (2006) The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day T., Kincaid H. (1994) Putting inference to the best explanation in its place. Synthese 98(2): 271–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douven, I. (2011). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 ed.). Retrieved 29 June 2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/.
  14. Douven I., Horsten L. (1998) Earman on underdetermination and empirical indistinguishability. Erkenntnis 49(3): 303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63(3): 194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor J. A. (2000) The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabbay D. M., Woods J. (2005) The reach of abduction: Insight and trial, Vol. 2 of a practical logic of cognitive systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass D. H. (2007) Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation. Synthese 157(3): 275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glass, D. H. (2010). Inference to the best explanation: Does it track truth? Synthese doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9829-9.
  20. Harman G. H. (1965) The inference to the best explanation. The Philosohical Review 74(1): 88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harman G. H. (1968) Enumerative induction as inference to the best explanation. The Journal of Philosophy 65(18): 529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hintikka J. (1998) What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34(3): 503–533Google Scholar
  23. Hitchcock C., Woodward J. (2003) Explanatory generalizations. Part II. Plumbing explanatory depth. Noûs 37(2): 181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huemer M. (2009a) Explanationist aid for the theory of inductive logic. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(2): 345–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huemer M. (2009b) When is parsimony a virtue?. The Philosophical Quarterly 59(235): 216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Josephson, J. R., Josephson, S. G. (eds) (2003) Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuipers T. A. F. (2002) Beauty, a road to the truth. Synthese 131(3): 291–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehrer K. (1990) Theory of knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis C. I. (1946) An analysis of knowledge and valuation. Open Court, LaSalle, ILGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipton P. (1993) Is the best good enough?. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 43: 89–104Google Scholar
  32. Lipton P. (2004) Inference to the best explanation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lombrozo T. (2007) Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology 55(3): 232–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lycan W. G. (1988) Judgement and justification. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Magnani L. (2001) Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrew T. (2003) Confirmation, heuristics, and explanatory reasoning. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54(4): 553–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKaughan D. J. (2008) From ugly duckling to swan: C. S. Peirce, abduction, and the pursuit of scientific theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 44(3): 446–468Google Scholar
  38. McMullin E. (1996) Epistemic virtue and theory appraisal. In: Douven I., Horsten L. (eds) Realism in the sciences. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp 13–34Google Scholar
  39. Minnameier G. (2004) Peirce-suit of truth: Why inference to the best explanation and abduction ought not to be confused. Erkenntnis 60(1): 75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myrvold W. C. (2003) A Bayesian account of the virtue of unification. Philosophy of Science 70(2): 399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niiniluoto I. (1999a) Critical scientific realism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Niiniluoto I. (1999b) Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66(Supplement): S436–S451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peirce C. S. (1934) The collected papers of charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Peirce C. S. (1935) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Peirce C. S. (1958) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Psillos S. (1999) Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Psillos S. (2002) Simply the best: A case for abduction. In: Kakas A. C., Sadri F. (eds) Computational logic: Logic programming and beyond, Vol. 2408 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 605–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Psillos S. (2007) The fine structure of inference to the best explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74(2): 441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Read S. J., Marcus-Newhall A. (1993) Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(3): 429–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reichenbach H. (1956) The direction of time. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Rescher N. (1973) The coherence theory of truth. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Salmon W. C. (2001) Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Lipton. In: Hon G., Rakover S. S. (eds) Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 121–136Google Scholar
  53. Schurz G. (1999) Explanation as unification. Synthese 120(1): 95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schurz G. (2008) Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164(2): 201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon, A. H. (2001). Science seeks parsimony, not simplicity: Searching for pattern in phenomena. In A. Zellner, H. A. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling: Keeping it sophisticatedly simple (pp. 32–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sober, E. (2001). What is the problem of simplicity? In A. Zellner, H. A. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling: Keeping it sophisticatedly simple (pp. 13–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thagard P. (1978) The best explanation: criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy 75(2): 76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thagard P. (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 12: 435–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thagard P. (1993) Computational philosophy of science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  60. Thagard P. (2007) Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74(1): 28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Fraassen B. C. (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woodward J. (2003) Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Zellner, A., Keuzenkamp, H. A., McAleer, M. (eds) (2001) Simplicity, inference and modelling: Keeping it sophisticatedly simple. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and History of Philosophy, Faculty of PhilosophyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations