In this dissertation I consider the problem of external world skepticism and attempts at providing an argument to the best explanation against it. In chapter one I consider several different ways of formulating the crucial skeptical argument, settling on an argument that centers on the question of whether we're justified in believing propositions about the external world. I then consider and reject several options for getting around this issue which I take to be inadequate. I finally conclude that the best option available to us at the moment is to argue that the antiskeptical view is the best explanation of our ordinary experiences In chapter two I argue that, if we hope to ground what counts as defending antiskepticism in common sense, there is an argument against the possibility of ever knowing one has succeeded in defending antiskepticism. After showing that common sense is no place to look in setting a goal for our antiskeptical project, I present the view that what will be crucial to settling on our antiskeptical goal is coming to a successful analysis of the nature of physical objects. I suggest some minimal criteria that must be met by a view in order to be antiskeptical based on our intuitions about core skeptical cases, but acknowledge that a fully successful response to external world skepticism will require the antiskeptic to engage in some much more difficult analysis. In chapter three I consider various views of the nature of explanation and conclude, tentatively, that explanation as it interests the antiskeptic is fundamentally causal. In chapter four I consider and reject some of the core views on which best explanation facts are so fundamental that a project of attempting to vindicate probabilistically the virtues which make explanations epistemically good. In this chapter I show that views which analyze justification in terms of best explanation factors fail. In chapter five I attempt to vindicate the various explanatory virtues probabilistically. In doing so I attempt to express or translate the various explanatory virtues in terms of probabilities in order to show that having those virtues makes a view at least prima facie more probable. In chapters six and seven I explain and evaluate the various arguments to the best explanation against skepticism present in current philosophical literature. I attempt to show that extant arguments fail to appreciate the virtues possessed by classical (and some new) skeptical scenarios. In chapter eight I briefly consider some options that may be open to the antiskeptic moving forward. All routes forward contain considerable obstacles, but there are some fruitful areas of research to pursue.

In this paper I will argue that the controversial process of inferring to the best explanation (IBE) can be made more coherent if its formulation recognizes and includes a significant inductive component. To do so, I will examine the relationship between Harman’s, Lipton’s, and Fumerton’s positions on IBE, settling ultimately upon a conception that categorically rejects Harman’s account while appropriating potions of both Lipton’s and Fumerton’s accounts. The resulting formulation will be called inductive-IBE, and I will argue that this formulation more accurately describes the inferential practices employed in scientific inquiry. The upshot of my argument, that IBE contains a significant inductive component, will be that any conclusion born from such types of inductive inference must be, at best, likely, and not a necessity. And, although previous accounts of IBE have accepted the defeasibility of IBE, I will argue that inductive-IBE is more descriptive because it tells us why this fallibility exists. That is, although the Liptonian conception of IBE acknowledges that IBE is fallible, my account specifically addresses this characteristic and, thus, is more descriptive and informative in this regard. I will use inductive-IBE to argue, contra van Fraassen, that IBE can be a legitimate form of inference that leads science to true theories and real entities.

In this paper I will argue that the controversial process of inferring to the best explanation (IBE) can be made more coherent if its formulation recognizes and includes a significant inductive component. To do so, I will examine the relationship between Harman’s, Lipton’s, and Fumerton’s positions on IBE, settling ultimately upon a conception that categorically rejects Harman’s account while appropriating potions of both Lipton’s and Fumerton’s accounts. The resulting formulation will be called inductive-IBE, and I will argue that this formulation more accurately describes the inferential practices employed in scientific inquiry. The upshot of my argument, that IBE contains a significant inductive component, will be that any conclusion born from such types of inductive inference must be, at best, likely, and not a necessity. And, although previous accounts of IBE have accepted the defeasibility of IBE, I will argue that inductive-IBE is more descriptive because it tells us why this fallibility exists. That is, although the Liptonian conception of IBE acknowledges that IBE is fallible, my account specifically addresses this characteristic and, thus, is more descriptive and informative in this regard. I will use inductive-IBE to argue, contra van Fraassen, that IBE can be a legitimate form of inference that leads science to true theories and real entities.

No description available.

Bas van Fraassen argues that inference to the best explanation (IBE) is a probabilistically incoherent rule (1989). Anyone following IBE is open to being Dutch booked. According to one of the most interesting and popular responses to van Fraassen’s argument, van Fraassen misrepresents IBE in probabilistic terms. With the proper probabilistic representation, it is claimed, IBE is not inconsistent with Bayesian rationality constraints. Building on the work of IBE’s proponents, I first propose a minimal account of what makes one explanation better than another. I then argue that, even on this minimal account, the alternative probabilistic model of IBE does not work, and hence fails to successfully respond to van Fraassen’s argument.

Bas van Fraassen argues that inference to the best explanation (IBE) is a probabilistically incoherent rule (1989). Anyone following IBE is open to being Dutch booked. According to one of the most interesting and popular responses to van Fraassen’s argument, van Fraassen misrepresents IBE in probabilistic terms. With the proper probabilistic representation, it is claimed, IBE is not inconsistent with Bayesian rationality constraints. Building on the work of IBE’s proponents, I first propose a minimal account of what makes one explanation better than another. I then argue that, even on this minimal account, the alternative probabilistic model of IBE does not work, and hence fails to successfully respond to van Fraassen’s argument.

Disertacija skirta geriausio paaiškinimo išvedimo (GPI) analizei. Pirma, tyrimas eksplikuoja, kas yra GPI, ką žymi sąvoka aiškinamoji galia. Antra, tyrimas įvertina GPI pretenzijų į tiesą apginamumą – ar teisinga yra hipotezė, jeigu ji yra geriausias tam tikro reiškinio paaiškinimas. GPI skleidžiamas kaip materialaus samprotavimo forma, kuri priskiria teisingumą toms hipotezėms, kurios tarp savo varžovių pasižymi aukščiausiu aiškinamųjų veiksnių laipsniu: mažiausiai prieštarauja pripažintam žinojimui, unifikuoja svarbiausius reiškinius, yra giliausias paaiškinimas ir yra paprasčiausias paaiškinimas. Kritikuojamas tikimybinis požiūris į GPI. Išskiriami ir aprašomi keturi literatūroje randami GPI kaip vedančio į tiesą pagrindimo būdai: patikimumo-koherentinis, evoliucinis, tikimybinis bei empirinis-istorinis. Teigiama, kad nors GPI padeda įvertinti paaiškinimų tikimybių pasiskirstymą ir yra plačiai paplitusi praktika, dėl prastos atrankos argumento, galimo aiškinamųjų veiksnių nebendramatiškumo, pesimistinės indukcijos argumento ir argumento „atsarga gėdos nedaro“ žinomi GPI kaip vedančio į tiesą pagrindimo būdai nėra pakankami – GPI išvadų teisingumas yra atsitiktinis. / The dissertation analyses inference to the best explanation (IBE). Firstly, the thesis explicates the concept of IBE, it analyzes what does the concept of explanatory power stands for. Secondly, the thesis evaluates the tenability of the truth aspirations of IBE, it analyzes to what extent a hypothesis can be claimed to be true, given that it is the best explanation for some phenomenon of interest. IBE is explicated as a form of material inference that ascribes truth to the hypothesis that has the highest degree of explanatory virtues among its competitors: is the most consistent with approved background knowledge, unifies the most the relevant phenomena, is the deepest explanation and is the most simple explanation. Probabilistic approaches to IBE are criticized. Four basic ways of justification of the truth-conduciveness of IBE that can be discerned in the literature are described: reliabilist-coherentist, evolutionary, probabilistic and empirical-historical. The thesis concludes that while IBE could facilitate the determination of probability distributions and is a wide psychological practice, due to the bad lot argument, possible incommensurability of explanatory virtues, pessimistic induction and better safe than sorry beliefs all the four ways of justification of IBE in terms of truth-conduciveness cannot be taken for granted which leaves IBE only accidentally valid.

The dissertation analyses inference to the best explanation (IBE). Firstly, the thesis explicates the concept of IBE, it analyzes what does the concept of explanatory power stands for. Secondly, the thesis evaluates the tenability of the truth aspirations of IBE, it analyzes to what extent a hypothesis can be claimed to be true, given that it is the best explanation for some phenomenon of interest. IBE is explicated as a form of material inference that ascribes truth to the hypothesis that has the highest degree of explanatory virtues among its competitors: is the most consistent with approved background knowledge, unifies the most the relevant phenomena, is the deepest explanation and is the most simple explanation. Probabilistic approaches to IBE are criticized. Four basic ways of justification of the truth-conduciveness of IBE that can be discerned in the literature are described: reliabilist-coherentist, evolutionary, probabilistic and empirical-historical. The thesis concludes that while IBE could facilitate the determination of probability distributions and is a wide psychological practice, due to the bad lot argument, possible incommensurability of explanatory virtues, pessimistic induction and better safe than sorry beliefs all the four ways of justification of IBE in terms of truth-conduciveness cannot be taken for granted which leaves IBE only accidentally valid. / Disertacija skirta geriausio paaiškinimo išvedimo (GPI) analizei. Pirma, tyrimas eksplikuoja, kas yra GPI, ką žymi sąvoka aiškinamoji galia. Antra, tyrimas įvertina GPI pretenzijų į tiesą apginamumą – ar teisinga yra hipotezė, jeigu ji yra geriausias tam tikro reiškinio paaiškinimas. GPI skleidžiamas kaip materialaus samprotavimo forma, kuri priskiria teisingumą toms hipotezėms, kurios tarp savo varžovių pasižymi aukščiausiu aiškinamųjų veiksnių laipsniu: mažiausiai prieštarauja pripažintam žinojimui, unifikuoja svarbiausius reiškinius, yra giliausias paaiškinimas ir yra paprasčiausias paaiškinimas. Kritikuojamas tikimybinis požiūris į GPI. Išskiriami ir aprašomi keturi literatūroje randami GPI kaip vedančio į tiesą pagrindimo būdai: patikimumo-koherentinis, evoliucinis, tikimybinis bei empirinis-istorinis. Teigiama, kad nors GPI padeda įvertinti paaiškinimų tikimybių pasiskirstymą ir yra plačiai paplitusi praktika, dėl prastos atrankos argumento, galimo aiškinamųjų veiksnių nebendramatiškumo, pesimistinės indukcijos argumento ir argumento „atsarga gėdos nedaro“ žinomi GPI kaip vedančio į tiesą pagrindimo būdai nėra pakankami – GPI išvadų teisingumas yra atsitiktinis.

Mokslinis realizmas yra filosofinis požiūris tvirtinantis, kad mokslo teorijos teigia tiesą apie pasaulį. Šis požiūris nebūtų filosofiškai įdomus, jei jo nesiektų paneigti įvairūs filosofiniai, istoriniai ir sociologiniai kontrargumentai. Šiame darbe analizuojami Paulo Feyerabendo, Arthuro Fine‘o, Thomo S. Kuhno, Larry Laudano, Baso van Fraasseno bei socialinio konstruktyvizmo prieš mokslinį realizmą nukreipti argumentai. Vertinama, kaip šie argumentai atsilaiko prieš naujausius argumentus mokslinio realizmo naudai, pateiktus Philipo Kitcherio, Jarretto Leplino, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Stathiso Psillos ir kitų mokslinių realistų darbuose. Darbe teigiama, kad mokslinis realizmas yra nuoseklus, savo teiginius gerai pagrindžiantis, geriausiai mokslo sėkmę paaiškinantis mokslo teorijų aiškinimas ir todėl laikytinas teisingu teorinis požiūris. Mokslinis realizmas yra nuoseklus teorinis požiūris, kadangi pagrįsdamas dvi prielaidas, kad egzistuoja nuo mąstymo nepriklausomas ir tam tikrą struktūrą turintis pasaulis (ontologinė prielaida) bei kad mokslas yra pajėgus šį pasaulį pažinti (episteminė prielaida), daro išvadą apie mokslo teorijų semantiką, jog teorijos parodo, koks yra pasaulis. Mokslinis realizmas gerai pagrindžia savo teiginius ir prieš jį nukreipti argumentai nepajėgia jo paneigti. Savąjį episteminį optimizmą mokslinis realizmas pagrindžia neigdamas galimybę nubrėžti griežtą ribą tarp stebimų ir negalimų stebėti esinių ir reiškinių bei tvirtindamas abdukcijos (geriausio... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Scientific realism is a philosophical approach that claims the literal truth of scientific theories. This approach would not be philosophically interesting if there were not ample philosophical, historical and sociological arguments that would argue against it. In this thesis we evaluate the arguments of Paul Feyerabend, Arthur Fine, Thomas S. Kuhn, Larry Laudan and Bas van Fraassen as well as the challenge of social constructivists. All the counterarguments are weighed against the most up-to-date arguments for scientific realism – notably, Philip Kitcher, Jarrett Leplin, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Stathis Psillos and others. We claim that scientific realism is a consistent and soundly substantiated account of scientific theories which best explains the empirical success of scientific theories and which, therefore, is justly believed to be a truthful theoretical attitude. Scientific realism is a consistent theoretical attitude because it starts from the two premises that there is a mind independent world of a particular structure (an ontological premise) and that science is able to know this world (an epistemic premise) and concludes with a semantic thesis that scientific theories represent what the world is like. Scientific realism is a sound and well substantiated theoretical attitude because the arguments against it do not succeed to refute it. It grounds its epistemic optimism in the denial to draw a rigid line between the observable and unobservable aspects of the world and in... [to full text]

The dispute between nomological realists and anti-realists has been reflected in the formulation of various arguments and counterarguments that reach topics as diverse as modality, induction and the very scientific practice. In this context it is common to take the main realist argument –the nomological argument– for an instance of Inference to the Best Explanation, while Nomological Anti-realism is considered a skeptical alternative concerning natural laws, sustained by independent reasons. This paper aims to review that image of the Nomological Realism vs. Anti-realism debate in light of what we believe is an appropriate distinction between abduction and Inference to the Best Explanation. / La disputa entre realistas y antirrealistas nomológicos se ha plasmado en la formulación de diversos argumentos y contraargumentos que alcanzan tópicostan heterogéneos como la modalidad, la inducción y la misma práctica científica.En ese marco es frecuente tomar al principal argumento realista, el llamadoargumento nomológico, por una instancia de la inferencia a la mejor explicación,mientras que el antirrealismo nomológico se considera una alternativa escépticarespecto de las leyes naturales fundamentada por razones independientes. Elpresente trabajo propone revisar esa imagen del debate realismo vs. antirrealismonomológicos a la luz de lo que, consideramos, es una adecuada distinción entreabducción e inferencia a la mejor explicación.