Van Fraassen On I B E
—-
What is it?
A page detailing the problem(s) that van Fraassen has with inference to the best explanation (especially in relation to any role it may play in justifying scientific realism).
References
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image.
Lipton, P., Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd ed.)
—-
van Fraassen’s Views
Sellars’ Argument for Inferential Quality as Grounds for Realism Two statements: - 1.“As I see it, to have good reason for holding a theory is ipso facto to have good reason for holding that the entities postulated by the theory exist.” - 2. “We are always willing to believe that the theory which best explains the evidence, is empirically adequate.” - The first, by Sellars, is an attempt to link IBE (as a commonly employed scientific technique) with a realist position. The second, by van Fraassen, is an attempt to show that explanatory basis for scientific inference can be employed without the need to adopt a realist attitude towards scientific theories.
Conditions for the Employment of the IBE Operator IBE can only be applied once one is committed to a belief in one of some set of competing hypotheses. Hence, even if the realist can get from the application of IBE to realism, they first need some additional premiss to get one to the coice between competing hypotheses. Van Fraassen postulates a candidate: “every universal regularity in nature needs an explanation.”
The Demand for Explanation (~Smart) Arguments for realism that involve explanatory power as a criterion for theory choice only work if the demand for explanation is all-pervasive. This demand leads to the need for some theory (or group of theories) at least to be view as “real” so that they can provide a sort of “bed rock” for explanation of other theories that one may want to adopt in an instrumental way.
For van Fraassen, the anti-realist’s attitude to explanation differs in that he or she is willing to accept that the fact that data fit particular theories, is just that - a fact. It does not have, nor does it require, some form of explanation.
—-
Arguments Against van Fraassen
—-
What do I think?
- Mostly that I’m confused at this stage. More reading is needed…
—-