Search Results

In ”Explanation and Epistemology,” William Lycan proposes that explanation and epistemology are related in at least three ways. First, “to explain something is an epistemic act, and to have something explained to you is to learn.” The second way in which explanation is related to epistemology is by the idea of explanatory inference (the idea of proceeding from a specific explanandum to the best hypothetical explanation for that explanandum). This leads into a discussion of the third relation, Explanationism, which claims that a belief can be justified if it is arrived at by explanatory inference. Lycan distinguishes four degrees of the theory, but focuses on “Weak Explanationism” (the idea that epistemic justification by explanatory inference is possible) and “Ferocious Explanationism” (the notion that explanatory inference is the only basic form of ampliative inference).

This chapter provides a defense of analogical reasoning by linking it to standard pragmatic virtues that guide us in the choice of scientific theories. The idea is based on a high‐level analogy between science and the law. In case law, the basic justification for stare decisis (following precedent) is that it promotes consistency and predictability while still permitting the evolution of the legal system. We seek an analogous balance when we turn to plausibility arguments in science. It is argued that analogical arguments that satisfy the general principles of the articulation model strike an excellent balance between conservative epistemic values (such as simplicity and coherence with existing theory) and progressive epistemic values (such as fruitfulness and theoretical unification).

A weak unity thesis about epistemic virtues holds that there is a core epistemic value – true belief – and that processes, traits, or actions are epistemic virtues by virtue of their relations with this core value. According to veritistic unitarianism, justification is a distinct epistemic value from truth but derives its value from that of true belief. This is explicit in reliabilism and implicit in many varieties of foundationalism and coherentism. Deontological evidentialism rejects veritistic consequentialism but has trouble accounting for evidence‐gathering virtues. The claim that “pragmatic” epistemic virtues are unrelated to truth is examined but found unpersuasive or readily accommodated with minor tweakings of the veritistic perspective.