×

Inference to the best explanation: does it track truth? (English) Zbl 1274.62054

Summary: In the form of inference known as inference to the best explanation there are various ways to characterise what is meant by the best explanation. This paper considers a number of such characterisations including several based on confirmation measures and several based on coherence measures. The goal is to find a measure which adequately captures what is meant by ‘best’ and which also yields the truth with a high degree of probability. Computer simulations are used to show that the overlap coherence measure achieves this goal, enabling the true explanation to be identified almost as often as an approach which simply selects the most probable explanation. Further advantages to this approach are also considered in the case where there is uncertainty in the prior probability distribution.

MSC:

62A01 Foundations and philosophical topics in statistics
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Angere S. (2007) The defeasible nature of coherentist justification. Synthese 157: 321–335 · Zbl 1125.03002 · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9058-4
[2] Angere S. (2008) Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117(465): 1–26 · doi:10.1093/mind/fzn001
[3] Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford · Zbl 1120.62001
[4] Chajewska, U., & Halpern, J. Y. (1997). Defining explanation in probabilistic systems. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 62–71).
[5] Douven I. (1999) Inference to the best explanation made coherent. Philosophy of Science 66: S424–S435 · doi:10.1086/392743
[6] Fitelson B. (1999) The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66: S362–S378 · doi:10.1086/392738
[7] Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199 · Zbl 1038.03520 · doi:10.1093/analys/63.3.194
[8] Glass, D. H. (2002). Coherence, explanation and Bayesian networks. In M. O’Neill et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and cognitive science. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2464, pp. 177–182). Berlin: Springer. · Zbl 1018.68658
[9] Glass D. H. (2007) Coherence measures and inference to the best explanation. Synthese 157: 275–296 · Zbl 1126.03009 · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9055-7
[10] Lipton P. (2004) Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). Routledge, London
[11] McGrew T. (2003) Confirmation, heuristics and explanatory reasoning. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 553–567 · doi:10.1093/bjps/54.4.553
[12] Okasha S. (2000) Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Science 31: 691–710 · doi:10.1016/S0039-3681(00)00016-9
[13] Olsson E. J. (2002) What is the problem of coherence and truth? Journal of Philosophy 99: 246–272 · doi:10.2307/3655648
[14] Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence. Oxford University Press, Oxford · Zbl 1098.03515
[15] Psillos, S. (2004). Inference to the best explanation and Bayesianism. In F. Stadler (Ed.), Institute of Vienna circle yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 83–91). London: Kluwer.
[16] Shogenji T. (1999) Is coherence truth-conducive? Analysis 59: 338–345 · doi:10.1093/analys/59.4.338
[17] Treagar M. (2004) Using explanatory factors in induction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 505–519 · Zbl 1059.03513 · doi:10.1093/bjps/55.3.505
[18] van Fraassen B. C. (1989) Laws and symmetry. Clarendon Press, Oxford
[19] Weisberg J. (2009) Locating IBE in the Bayesian framework. Synthese 167: 125–143 · doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9305-y
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.