Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:40:54.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inference to the Best Explanation Made Coherent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Igor Douven
Igor Douven*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
†Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Van Fraassen (1989) argues that Inference to the Best Explanation is incoherent in the sense that adopting it as a rule for belief change will make one susceptible to a dynamic Dutch book. The present paper argues against this. A strategy is described that allows us to infer to the best explanation free of charge.

Type
Explanation, Confirmation, and Scientific Inference
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S424 - S435
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I am greatly indebted to Jos Uffink for many helpful discussions and for detailed criticisms of previous versions of this paper; I am also grateful to Patrick Maher and Bas van Fraassen for valuable comments.

References

Day, Timothy and Kincaid, Harold (1994), “Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in Its Place”, Synthese 98: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David (1991), “Clever Bookies and Coherent Beliefs,” Philosophical Review 100: 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, Bruno (1937) “Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources”, in: H. Kyburg, Jr. and H. Smokier (eds.), (1980), Studies in Subjective Probability, 2nd ed. New York: Krieger, 53–118.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1992), Bayes or Bust?. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert (1997), “Pragmatism and Reasons for Belief”, in Kulp, C. B. (ed.), Realism/Antirealism and Epistemology. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 123–147.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin, and Urbach, Peter (1993), Scientific Reasoning, 2nd ed. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Leeds, Stephen (1994), “Constructive Empiricism”, Synthese 101: 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett (1997), A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Isaac (1987), “The Demons of Decision”, Monist 70: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1992), “Diachronic Rationality”, Philosophy of Science 59: 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick. (1993), Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. (1926), “Truth and Probability”, in his (1931), The Foundations of Mathematics. London: Routledge, 156–198.Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, Roger D. (1992), “The Justification of Induction”, Philosophy of Science 59: 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Glenn (1985), “Conditional Probability”, International Statistical Review 85: 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1987), “Coherence”, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 225–241.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian. (1993), “A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments?”, Philosophy of Science 60:320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, Paul (1973), “Conditionalization and Observation”, Synthese 26: 218–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1984), “Belief and the Will”, Journal of Philosophy 81: 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar