Inference to the Best Explanation and van Fraassen’s Contextual Theory of Explanation: Reply to Park

Prasetya, Yunus

doi:10.1007/s10516-020-09528-1

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I ( , 2019bCT. I ( , 2020b and Yunus Prasetya (2021) offer opposing answers to these questions. I criticize van Fraassen's position, whereas Prasetya defends it against my criticisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contextual Theory of Explanation and Inference to the Best Explanation

Park

2021

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Fraassen explains rejections and asymmetries in science in terms of his contextual theory of explanation in the same way that scientists explain observable phenomena in the world in terms of scientific theories. I object that van Fraassen's skeptical view regarding inference to the best explanation together with the English view of rationality jointly imply that the contextual theory is not rationally compelling, so van Fraassen and his epistemic colleagues can rationally disbelieve it. Prasetya replies that the truth of the contextual theory coincides with its empirical adequacy, so the contextual theory is compelling. He also replies that the contextual theory is compelling, provided that van Fraassen's argument for it instantiates a compelling subset of IBE. I argue that Prasetya's replies either fail or help scientific realism.

show abstract

“…I ( , 2019bCT. I ( , 2020b and Yunus Prasetya (2021) offer opposing answers to these questions. I criticize van Fraassen's position, whereas Prasetya defends it against my criticisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contextual Theory of Explanation and Inference to the Best Explanation

Park

2021

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

That’s Not IBE: Reply to Park

Prasetya

2021

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The realist and selectionist explanations for the success of science

Park

2022

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to realists, theories are successful because they are true, but according to selectionists, theories are successful because they have gone through a rigorous selection process. Wray claims that the realist and selectionist explanations are rivals to each other. Lee objects that they are instead complementary to each other. In my view, Lee's objection presupposes that the realist explanation is true, and thus it begs the question against selectionists. By contrast, the selectionist explanation invokes a scientific theory, and thus it is not clear whether it is a realist explanation or an antirealist explanation. Finally, the six new arguments for scientific realism in the literature truly complement the no-miracles argument.

show abstract

Inference to the Best Explanation and van Fraassen’s Contextual Theory of Explanation: Reply to Park

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

The Contextual Theory of Explanation and Inference to the Best Explanation

The Contextual Theory of Explanation and Inference to the Best Explanation

That’s Not IBE: Reply to Park

The realist and selectionist explanations for the success of science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About