Does IBE Require a "Model" of Explanation?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In this paper, I consider an important challenge to the popular theory of scientific inference commonly known as “Inference to the Best Explanation” (IBE), one which has received scant attention. The problem is that there exists a wide array of rival models of explanation, thus leaving IBE objectionably indeterminate. First, I briefly introduce IBE. Then, I motivate the problem and offer three potential solutions, the most plausible of which is to adopt a kind of pluralism about the rival models of explanation. However, I argue that i) how ranking explanations on this pluralistic account of IBE remains obscure and ii) pluralism leads to contradictory results. In light of these objections, I attempt to dissolve the problem by showing why IBE does not require a “model” of explanation and by giving an account of what explanation consists in within the context of IBE.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CABDIR
Revision history
First archival date: 2017-07-06
Latest version: 3 (2017-09-19)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Hempel, Carl G. & Oppenheim, Paul

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-07-06

Total views
80 ( #23,727 of 37,252 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #13,210 of 37,252 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.