BibTex RIS Cite

Two Tokens of the Inference to the Best Explanation: No-Miracle Argument and the Selectionist Explanation

Year 2015, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 31 - 46, 13.07.2015
https://doi.org/10.18491/bijop.59053

Abstract

In this paper, I evaluate van Fraassen’s critique of the Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) by focusing mainly on his argument of bad lot. First, I argue that his attack is about the reliability of IBE as a rule of inference. Secondly, I evaluate the most famous realist IBE in the philosophy of science literature, namely the No-Miracle Argument (NMA). I stick to Mark Newman’s attack to realist NMA and admit his claim that NMA is viciously circular. Thirdly, I introduce the anti-realist alternative to the NMA, which is argued by van Fraassen, namely the Selectionist Explanation. Ultimately, I claim that, even though van Fraassen finds IBE wanting, SA has a form of IBE and thus it is a token of IBE as well.

References

  • Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of Science. London: McGill-Queens University Press.
  • Boyd, R. (1984). The Current Status of the Realism Debate. Scientific Realism (ed. J. Leplin). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Boyd, R. (1996). Realism, Approximate Truth, and Method. The Philosophy of Science (ed. D. Papineau). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Erdenk (2014) Bilimin Başarısının Gerçekçi Açıklaması ve Onun Karşıt-Gerçekçi Alternatifi: “Seçilimci Açıklama” ve “Zayıf Sürrealism”. Günümüzü Felsefe ile Düşünmek (eds. B. Gülşen & E. Bozkurt & G. Sorkuç & U. Morkoç).İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, s. 85-98.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kukla, A. (1996). Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, 63, 298-305.
  • Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., and van Fraassen, B. C. (1997). A Defence of Van Fraassen’s Critique of Abductive Inference: Reply to Psillos. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47/188, 305-312.
  • Laudan, L. (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19-49.
  • Leplin, J. (1997). A Novel Defence of Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. USA&Canada: Routledge.
  • Newman, M. (2010). The No-Miracles Argument, Reliabilism, and a Methodological Version of the Generality Problem. Synthese, 177, 111-138.
  • Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Science, 31, 691-710.
  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: RKP.
  • Psillos, S. (1996). On Van Fraassen’s Critique of Abductive Reasoning. The Philosophical Quarterly, 46/182, 31-47.
  • Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. New York: Routledge.
  • Putnam, H. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: RKP.
  • Putnam, H. (1979). Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: RKP.
  • Wray, K. B. (2010). Selection and Predictive Success. Erkenntnis, 72, 365-377.
Year 2015, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 31 - 46, 13.07.2015
https://doi.org/10.18491/bijop.59053

Abstract

References

  • Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of Science. London: McGill-Queens University Press.
  • Boyd, R. (1984). The Current Status of the Realism Debate. Scientific Realism (ed. J. Leplin). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Boyd, R. (1996). Realism, Approximate Truth, and Method. The Philosophy of Science (ed. D. Papineau). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Erdenk (2014) Bilimin Başarısının Gerçekçi Açıklaması ve Onun Karşıt-Gerçekçi Alternatifi: “Seçilimci Açıklama” ve “Zayıf Sürrealism”. Günümüzü Felsefe ile Düşünmek (eds. B. Gülşen & E. Bozkurt & G. Sorkuç & U. Morkoç).İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, s. 85-98.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kukla, A. (1996). Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, 63, 298-305.
  • Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., and van Fraassen, B. C. (1997). A Defence of Van Fraassen’s Critique of Abductive Inference: Reply to Psillos. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47/188, 305-312.
  • Laudan, L. (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19-49.
  • Leplin, J. (1997). A Novel Defence of Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. USA&Canada: Routledge.
  • Newman, M. (2010). The No-Miracles Argument, Reliabilism, and a Methodological Version of the Generality Problem. Synthese, 177, 111-138.
  • Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Science, 31, 691-710.
  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: RKP.
  • Psillos, S. (1996). On Van Fraassen’s Critique of Abductive Reasoning. The Philosophical Quarterly, 46/182, 31-47.
  • Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. New York: Routledge.
  • Putnam, H. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: RKP.
  • Putnam, H. (1979). Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: RKP.
  • Wray, K. B. (2010). Selection and Predictive Success. Erkenntnis, 72, 365-377.
There are 20 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Emre Arda Erdenk This is me

Publication Date July 13, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 5 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Erdenk, E. A. (2015). Two Tokens of the Inference to the Best Explanation: No-Miracle Argument and the Selectionist Explanation. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, 5(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.18491/bijop.59053