Open AccessBad Lots, Good Explanations
Author(s) -
Valeriano Iranzo
Publication year - 2001
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.101
H-Index - 6
ISSN - 1870-4905
DOI - 10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2001.920
Subject(s) - epistemology , argument (complex analysis) , consilience , inference , analogy , simplicity , philosophy , focus (optics) , goodness of fit , conservatism , mathematics , law , political science , biochemistry , chemistry , physics , politics , optics , statistics
Van Fraassen's argument from the "bad lot" challenges realist interpretations of inference to the best explanation (IBE). In this paper I begin by discussing the replies suggested by S. Psillos and P. Lipton. I do not find them convincing. However, I think that van Fraassen's argument is flawed. First of all, it is a non sequitur. Secondly, I think that the real target for the scientific realist is the underlying assumption that epistemic justification results from a comparative assessment among rival explanations. I argue that justification for believing an explanation does not depend on comparison, but on the extent that criteria of explanatory goodness are fulfilled. Therefore, in addition to offering more or less intuitive IBE-tailored arguments, realists fond of IBE should have to analyze the implicit standards of explanatory goodness. In the last section I distinguish between contextual and transcontextual criteria concerning explanatory goodness. Concerning the latter, I focus on consilience, simplicity, analogy and conservatism.