Inference to the Best Explanation

According to Ch 8. "Inference to the Best Explanation: The General Account" and Ch 9. "Inference to the Best Explanation: Examples" in John D. Norton, The Material Theory of Induction. BSPSopoen, 2021.

Two Step Model

(Constructed after an examination of many standard examples of IBE in science.)

Step 1. Preference for the Better Explanation

The favored hypothesis is adequate to the evidence, most commonly in the sense that it deductively entails the evidence.

The foils, that is, the alternatives, are judged inadequate in one of two ways:

Contradiction: The evidence at hand may directly contradict the alternative; or the evidence supplemented by specific background facts may contradict the alternative.

Evidential debt: to accept the alternative requires us to accept further assumptions for which we have no evidence.

The essential point is that the favoring invokes no explanatory notions.

Step 2. From Comparative to Absolute: Better is Best

The safest case arises when background assumptions assure us that the hypotheses or theories we have considered are exhaustive.

The most difficult case is the most common. It is when the inference from better to absolute best is made, even though the scientist have no clear grasp of the full range of hypotheses or theories possible.

Often this step is not taken explicitly.

Major Claims

No distinctively explanatory notions appear. There is no attribution of special inductive powers to some specific notion of explanation. Much of the important inductive work is carried by elimining the foil.

The present literature in IBE is degenerating as far as science is concerned. The examples are overwhelmingly ones concerning human action, where the role of the foil is minimal. They are poor models for abductive inferences in science. (Footprints in the snow vs origin of species)

Catalog of Case Studies