We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

Department of Philosophy

Rune Nyrup

04th November 2014, 6pm

Title: How Explanatory Reasoning Justifies Pursuit: A Peircean View of IBE

Explanationism is a view according to which the fact that a hypothesis would be a good explanation of one or more phenomena gives some additional reason to accept it as true. This is usually called Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). But why should a hypothesis be any more likely actually to be true just because it would be a good explanation if it were true? Explanationists face the problem of accounting for how explanatoriness can act as a guide to likeliness.

In this paper I defend an alternative to explanationism which I call the Peircean view. According to this view explanatory reasoning, and IBE in particular, only give reasons for pursuing hypotheses. This side-steps the truth-connection problem facing explanationism. Furthermore, the Peircean view does not face any analogous problems either. I present an account of justification for pursuit (inspired by C.S. Peirce's writings on abduction) and show how this provides for a simple and straightforward connection between explanatoriness and justification for pursuit.