A Kuhnian defence of inference to the best explanation

According to inference to the best explanation (IBE), scientists infer the loveliest of competing hypotheses, ‘loveliness’ being explanatory virtue. This generates two key objections: that loveliness is too subjective to guide inference, and that it is no guide to truth. I defend IBE using Thomas Kuhn’s notion of exemplars: the scientific theories, or applications thereof, that define Kuhnian normal science and facilitate puzzle-solving. I claim that scientists infer the explanatory puzzle-solution that best meets the standard set by the relevant exemplar of loveliness. Exemplars are the subject of consensus, eliminating subjectivity; divorced from Kuhnian relativism, they give loveliness the context-sensitivity required to be truth-tropic. The resulting account, ‘Kuhnian IBE’, is independently plausible and offers a partial rapprochement between IBE and Kuhn’s account of science.     

Reference to the best explanation

This paper shows that two questions productively overlap: first, in virtue of what does an agent infer one hypothesis rather than another? Second, in virtue of what does an agent refer to one natural kind rather than another? Peter Lipton (2004) answers the first question by articulating the model of inference to the best explanation. Lipton’s answer to the first question is appropriated as an answer to the second.     

Inference to the best explanation and Norton's material theory of induction

I argue that we should consider Norton's material theory of induction as consisting of two largely independent claims. First, there is the claim that material facts license inductions - a claim which I interpret as a type of contextualism about induction. Second, there is the claim that there are no universal rules of induction. While a good case can be made for the first claim, I believe that Norton's arguments for the second claim are lacking. In particular, I spell out Norton's argument against the claim that all induction may be reduced to inference to the best explanation, and argue that it is not persuasive. Rejecting this part of Norton's theory does not however require us to abandon the first claim that material facts license inductions. In this way, I distinguish the parts of the material theory of induction we should happily accept from the parts about which we should be more skeptical.     

Response to Maarten Van Dyck’s commentary

In response to Maarten Van Dyck’s commentary, I present a translation of Vailati’s original paper with a short introductory note.     

Realizability and the varieties of explanation

What realization is has been convincingly presented in relation to the way we determine what counts as the realizers of realized properties. The way we explain a fact of realization includes a reference to what realization should be; therefore it informs in turn our understanding of the nature of realization. Conceptions of explanation are thereby included in the views of realization as a metaphysical property.Recently, several major views of realization such as Polger and Shapiro's or Gillett and Aizawa's, however competing, have relied on the neo-mechanicist theory of explanations (e.g,. Darden and Caver 2013), currently popular among philosophers of science. However, it has also been increasingly argued that some explanations are not mechanistic (e.g., Batterman 2009).Using an account given in Huneman (2017), I argue that within those explanations the fact that some mathematical properties are instantiated is explanatory, and that this defines a specific explanatory type called “structural explanation”, whose subtypes could be: optimality explanations (usually found in economics), topological explanations, etc. This paper thereby argues that all subtypes of structural explanation define several kinds of realizability, which are not equivalent to the usual notion of realization tied to mechanistic explanations, onto which many of the philosophical investigations are focused. Then it draws some consequences concerning the notion of multiple realizability.     

The goal of explanation

I defend the claim that understanding is the goal of explanation against various persistent criticisms, especially the criticism that understanding is not truth-connected in the appropriate way, and hence is a merely psychological (rather than epistemic) state. Part of the reason why understanding has been dismissed as the goal of explanation, I suggest, is because the psychological dimension of the goal of explanation has itself been almost entirely neglected. In turn, the psychological dimension of understanding—the Aha! experience, the sense that a certain explanation “feels right”, and so on—has been conspicuously overemphasized. I try to correct for both of these exaggerations. Just as the goal of explanation includes a richer psychological—including phenomenological—dimension than is generally acknowledged, so too understanding has a stronger truth connection than is generally acknowledged.     

The ontic conception of scientific explanation

Wesley Salmon's version of the ontic conception of explanation is a main historical root of contemporary work on mechanistic explanation. This paper examines and critiques the philosophical merits of Salmon's version, and argues that his conception's most fundamental construct is either fundamentally obscure, or else reduces to a non-ontic conception of explanation. Either way, the ontic conception is a misconception.     

Goethe's critique of Newton: A reconsideration

The masses may concede that someone has talent where he has displayed a certain industry and fortune has not been unkind to him; but if he tries to enter another field and diversify his abilities, he appears to damage the claim he once had on public opinion, and therefore his efforts in a new realm are seldom accepted with favor and good will.     

A non representationalist view of model explanation

In this paper, I examine two idealized models in astrophysics, with the aim of showing that the idealizations in these models play an important explanatory role. I argue, against many representationalists, that it is because of the idealizations in these models, rather than in spite of them, that the models turn out to have explanatory power. In many cases, this claim can be extended to the use of idealized models in the sciences more generally, and thus it gives important insight into the nature of model explanation.     

Prediction and explanation of chemical mutation sites

Résumé En ce qui concerne I'ARN du VMT, les codons voisins y présentent des arrangements analogues. Il s'agit seulement des codons qui subissent une mutation sous l'action de l'acide nitreux, mutation qui conduit à une modification de la protéine de l'enveloppe. Cette observation suggère, que l'examen minutieux de la séquence d'un acide nucléique pourrait permettre de prédire les sites probables où aura lieu la mutation chimique et que les «hot spots» pour une mutation spontanée pourraient aussi avoir des codons voisins caractéristiques.     

A pragmatic account of mechanistic artifact explanation

A mechanistic artifact explanation is an explanation that accounts for an artifact behavior by describing the underlying mechanism. The article shows that there are different kinds of mechanistic artifact explanation: top-down and bottom-up explanation, and I also distinguish between less and more inclusive top-down explanations. To illustrate these different kinds of explanation, the behavior of a simple, fictional artifact is explained in different ways. I defend that which explanation is ideal, depends on pragmatic factors (e.g., the background knowledge of the explainee and the specific goal for which the explanation will be used). For each kind of explanation, the situations, goals and interests for which it is most appropriate are specified, resulting in a pragmatic theory of mechanistic artifact explanation. This theory is compared to Jeroen de Ridder’s account of the pragmatics of mechanistic artifact explanation.     

A possible physiochemical explanation for the psychotherapeutic role of lithium]

Manic-depressive psychosis could result from degradation of lipids in some neuronic membranes. This degradation could lead to fatty acids, which when ionized in the external medium would definitely disappear. If this medium contains Li+, a poorly soluble precipitate would be formed with the fatty anions. This precipitate, impermeable to its formative ions would slow down the dissipation of the fatty acids and thus facilitate the resynthesis of the original lipids. Ca++ cations being divalent could not play the same role.     

Newtonianism in early Enlightenment Germany, c. 1720 to 1750: metaphysics and the critique of dogmatic philosophy

The acceptance of Newton’s ideas and Newtonianism in the early German Enlightenment is usually described as hesitant and slow. Two reasons help to explain this phenomenon. One is that those who might have adopted Newtonian arguments were critics of Wolffianism. These critics, however, drew on indigenous currents of thought, pre-dating the reception of Newton in Germany and independent of Newtonian science. The other reason is that the controversies between Wolffians and their critics focused on metaphysics. Newton’s reputation, however, was that of a mathematician, and one point, on which Wolffians and their opponents agreed, was that mathematics was of no use in the solution of metaphysical questions. The appeal to Newton as an authority in metaphysics, it was argued, was the fault of Newton’s over-zealous disciples in Britain, who tried to transform him from a mathematician into the author of a general philosophical system. It is often argued that the Berlin Academy after 1743 included a Newtonian group, but even there the reception of Newtonianism was selective. Philosophers such as Leonhard Euler were also reluctant to be labelled ‘Newtonians’, because this implied a dogmatic belief in Newton’s ideas. Only after the mid-eighteenth century is ‘Newtonianism’ increasingly accepted in the sense of a philosophical system.     

Slow conduction in the atrioventricular node of the cat: A possible explanation

Zusammenfassung Nachweis, dass bei Erhöhung des Membranpotentials im AV-Knoten der Katze eine raschere Erregungsausbreitung erzielt werden kann.

---

---

This work was supported by a research grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education.