Full Idea
How can Best Explanation distinguish negative evidence from irrelevant evidence, when the evidence is logically consistent with the hypothesis?
Gist of Idea
How do we distinguish negative from irrelevant evidence, if both match the hypothesis?
Source
Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'A case')
Book Reference
Lipton,Peter: 'Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd ed)' [Routledge 2004], p.76
A Reaction
There seems no answer to this other than to assess batches of evidence by their coherence, rather than one at a time. Anomalies can be conclusive, or pure chance.