A Ferocious Response to the Screening-off Thesis

This submission has open access
Submission Summary
In this essay I examine Roche and Sober’s (R&S) thesis that explanation is evidentially irrelevant, clarify the nodal points of disagreement, and defend explanationism. To do this, I utilize William Lycan’s categories of explanationism (2002) and a distinction between per se explanatoriness and particular explanatoriness. These help show that even if there are cases where explanation identification does not raise the probability of a hypothesis, ferocious explanationism is not even in principle challenged by R&S. Further, R&S’ challenge to inference to best explanation proves too much and ultimately fails.
Submission ID :
PSA2022481
Submission Type
Submission Topic

Associated Sessions

University of St Andrews

Similar Abstracts by Type

Submission ID
Submission Title
Submission Topic
Submission Type
Primary Author
PSA2022514
Philosophy of Biology - ecology
Contributed Papers
Dr. Katie Morrow
PSA2022405
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Contributed Papers
Vincenzo Crupi
PSA2022440
Confirmation and Evidence
Contributed Papers
Mr. Adrià Segarra
PSA2022410
Explanation
Contributed Papers
Ms. Haomiao Yu
PSA2022504
Formal Epistemology
Contributed Papers
Dr. Veronica Vieland
PSA2022450
Decision Theory
Contributed Papers
Ms. Xin Hui Yong
PSA2022402
Formal Epistemology
Contributed Papers
Peter Lewis
PSA2022388
Philosophy of Biology - evolution
Contributed Papers
Dr. James DiFrisco
111 hits