Inference to the Best Explanation
Not every good argument is a strict syllogism; much philosophical and scientific reasoning uses inference to the best explanation, choosing the hypothesis that best accounts for the evidence. You will be able to construct and identify this kind of argument.
How It Works
Inference to the best explanation starts from an observed fact, lists competing explanations, and argues one explanation accounts for the evidence better than its rivals — this is how doctors diagnose disease and how scientists choose between theories. In BQ, it is the backbone of arguments like 'consciousness is best explained by physical brain states because every known correlate of experience is physical.'
Comparing Explanations, Not Just Asserting One
A weak version of this argument just asserts a favored explanation; a strong version explicitly compares it to at least one rival and shows why it wins — simplicity, explanatory scope, or consistency with established science.
Observed fact: humans report feeling as though they freely choose their actions.
Explanation A (Affirmative): this feeling reflects a real, causally efficacious faculty of free choice. Explanation B (Negative): this feeling is a post-hoc narrative the brain constructs after a decision is already causally determined, as suggested by Libet-style experiments. A strong Negative case argues Explanation B better fits the neuroscience evidence, making it the best explanation for the observed feeling.
1. What does 'inference to the best explanation' require, beyond stating a favored theory?
Answer all 1 to check.
When resolutions ask 'why' something is the case, use inference to the best explanation and always compare against a named rival theory.