more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It is objected to 'best explanation' that this may well not be the best of all possible worlds - so why think that the best explanation is true? Maybe bad (complicated, unsystematic and weak) explanations are true.
Gist of Idea
Maybe bad explanations are the true ones, in this messy world
Source
Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.157
A Reaction
The only rebuttal of this objection to best explanation seems to be a priori. It would just seem an odd situation if very simple explanations fitted the facts and yet were false, like the points on a graph being a straight line by pure coincidence.
| 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] |