more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Van Fraassen asks why we should think that the actual explanation of the evidence should be found among the theories we are considering, when there must be an infinity of theories which are also potential explanations of the evidence?
Gist of Idea
Why should the true explanation be one of the few we have actually thought of?
Source
report of Bas C. van Fraassen (The Scientific Image [1980]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.4
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.145
A Reaction
This has become one of the leading modern anti-realist arguments. We must introduce an element of faith here; presumably evolution makes us experts on immediate puzzles, competent on intermediate ones, and hopeful on remote ones.
| 21386 | We should accept as explanations all the plausible ways in which something could come about [Epicurus] |
| 12769 | Inference to best explanation contains all sorts of hidden values [Fraassen] |
| 6784 | Why should the true explanation be one of the few we have actually thought of? [Fraassen, by Bird] |
| 16183 | In science, best explanations have regularly turned out to be false [Cartwright,N] |
| 16821 | Must we only have one explanation, and must all the data be made relevant? [Lipton] |
| 16838 | Bayesians say best explanations build up an incoherent overall position [Lipton] |
| 16855 | The best theory is boring: compare 'all planets move elliptically' with 'most of them do' [Lipton] |
| 16852 | Best explanation can't be a guide to truth, because the truth must precede explanation [Lipton] |
| 3113 | The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal] |
| 6788 | Maybe bad explanations are the true ones, in this messy world [Bird] |
| 6787 | Which explanation is 'best' is bound to be subjective, and no guide to truth [Bird] |