Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    There is at least some provisional reason for thinking th... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is at least some provisional reason for thinking that hypothesis h might actually be true.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Some otherwise surprising fact e would be a reasonably expectable occurrence were hypothesis h true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An indefinitely large number of competing hypotheses can equally explain any surprising fact e, making none individually privileged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a principled method for restricting the hypothesis space, abductive inference licenses belief in arbitrarily many contradictory hypotheses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, explanatory success alone cannot constitute even provisional epistemic reason favoring h over its rivals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Fraassen's argument shows that 'inference to the best explanation' smuggles in an undefended premise that the best available explanation is likely true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The history of science demonstrates that empirically successful hypotheses—including Newtonian mechanics and caloric theory—were later shown to be false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abduction therefore warrants only that h is worth investigating, not that h has any positive probability of being true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Abduction therefore warrants only that h is worth investigating, not that h has ...An indefinitely large number of competing hypotheses can equally explain any sur...Some otherwise surprising fact e would be a reasonably expectable occurrence wer...The history of science demonstrates that empirically successful hypotheses—inclu...
    +3 moreShow less
    Therefore, explanatory success alone cannot constitute even provisional epistemi...Van Fraassen's argument shows that 'inference to the best explanation' smuggles ...Without a principled method for restricting the hypothesis space, abductive infe...

    Similar

    Simplicity is not always a reliable criterion for determining which hy...78%Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for God's existe...76%Some otherwise surprising fact e would be a reasonably expectable occu...76%A claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possi...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: teleological-arguments
    Peirce's notion of abduction
    View source passageHide passage
    One key underlying structure in this context is typically traced to Peirce’s notion of abduction. Suppose that some otherwise surprising fact e would be a reasonably expectable occurrence were hypothesis h true. That, Peirce argued, would constitute at least some provisional reason for thinking that h might actually be true. Peirce’s own characterization was as follows (Peirce 1955, 151):
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly presents Peirce's abductive argument that if a surprising fact e would be reasonably expectable given hypothesis h, then there is provisional reason to think h might be true, and the extracted argument accurately captures this reasoning.

    Confidence: Clear argument structure: Peirce's abductive reasoning pattern is explicitly laid out as an inference from explanatory expectability to provisional support for a hypothesis.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit