Philosophy of Science 66 (Supplement):S424-S435 (1999)
AbstractVan Fraassen (1989) argues that Inference to the Best Explanation is incoherent in the sense that adopting it as a rule for belief change will make one susceptible to a dynamic Dutch book. The present paper argues against this. A strategy is described that allows us to infer to the best explanation free of charge
Similar books and articles
Inference to the Best Explanation: Is It Really Different from Mill’s Methods?Steven Rappaport - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (1):65-80.
Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
The functions of fossils: Inference and explanation in functional morphology.Derek Turner - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31 (1):193-212.
Explanation and epistemology.William G. Lycan - 2002 - In Paul K. Moser (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 413.
Alien abduction: Inference to the best explanation and the management of testimony.Peter Lipton - 2007 - Episteme 4 (3):238-251.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Inference to the Best Explanation Made Incoherent.Nevin Climenhaga - 2017 - Journal of Philosophy 114 (5):251-273.
Arguments For—Or Against—Probabilism?Alan Hájek - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 229--251.
The heuristic conception of inference to the best explanation.Finnur Dellsén - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 175 (7):1745-1766.
References found in this work
Clever bookies and coherent beliefs.David Christensen - 1991 - Philosophical Review 100 (2):229-247.
Putting inference to the best explanation in its place.Timothy Day & Harold Kincaid - 1994 - Synthese 98 (2):271-295.