Ch.10 Flashcards
Explanations and inference
•Explanations assert why or how something is the case, arguments give reasons for believing that something is the case.
•An explanation is not an argument, but can be part of one.
•Inference to the best explanation: reasoning from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs. 
Explanations and inferences:
Example 1
- Phenomenon Q.
- E Provides the best explanation for Q.
- Therefore, it is probable that E is true.
- The new quarterback dropped the ball again.
- The best explanation for that screwup is that he’s nervous.
- So he’s probably nervous. 
Explanations and inferences:
Example 2
- Phenomenon Q.
- E Provides the best explanation for Q.
- Therefore, it is probable that E is true.
- There exists a wide variety of natural phenomena.
- The theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for this variety.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution is likely true. 
Minimum requirement of theories: consistency
-Internal consistency: when a theory is free of contradictions.
• Galileo show the Aristotle‘s theory of motion would imply that one falling objects falls both faster and slower than another one.
-External consistency: when a theory fully accounts for the phenomenon to be explained.
•Car parked overnight on the street, broken windshield, blood on the steering wheel, and a brick in your front seat.
•Proposed explanation: someone threw a brick through the windshield.
•But what about the blood on the steering wheel?
•Someone seems to have climbed through the windshield into your car. 
The criteria of Adquacy:
Testability
-Whether there is someway to determine if a theory is true.
•There are many universes other than our own—untestable
•An invisible, intangible, undetectable spirit is causing your headaches— untestable
•Claiming there are such beings doesn’t help us to Predict anything
• whereas the explanation that you are addicted to caffeine allows us to predict that if you do not drink caffeine that day, you will have a headache, whereas you won’t on days that you do
•We are not in a simulation right now—untestable
•Theory of witches—the devil is controlling some people called witches
•God or the devil cause events occur
•Fate causes events to occur
•Moral fault theory of disease— immoral behaviour causes illness
•Define placement theory of fossils— God created geological fossils to give the false impression of an ancient earth
•”Untestable Theory is just an oddity.” (372)— Is this true? What about the denial of a simulation theory?
The criteria of Adequacy:
Logical verificationism
-The only claims that are meaningful utterances are those that are verifiable (testable)
•Is this philosophy itself testable? It’s not making an empirical claim, so it’s meaningless
The criteria of Adequacy:
Fruitfulness
-The number of novel predictions made.

•Theory 1 and Theory 2 are identical except that theory 1 predicts the existence of a new entity, a new star in unchartered part of the sky.
•This is a reason to prefer Theory 1
•Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted that light would appear curved near massive objects such as stars, when the prevailing view was that life travelled in straight lines 
•Addington was able to confirm this through an experiment during an eclipse, meaning Einstein’s theory was fruitful
The criteria of Adequacy:
Scope
The amount of diverse phenomena explained.
•Theory 1 can only explain the phenomena at hand, whereas Theory 2 can explain many other phenomena.
•This means theory 2 has a greater scope
•Einstein’s theory could explain everything newtons theory could, and then many more phenomena.
•Constructive perspective theory Vs. there really are UFOs
•We see what we expect can explain UFO sightings and hallucinations, feelings of a presence, misidentification of crime suspects, and contradictory reports in car accidents, etc.

The criteria of Adequacy:
Simplicity
The number of assumptions made.
•Your car won’t start
1. Each night, you sabotage your car by sleepwalking.
2. You’re 90-year-old uncle who lives thousands of miles away secretly goes for joy rides in your car.
3. Poltergeist is damaging your car.
4. You accidentally drove through an alternative space-time to mention yesterday. 
These make lots of assumptions. More Sumption’s then that your battery is dead.
- Assumes a complex chain of events (You sleepwalk without waking up, you can sabotage a car in your sleep, you wake up without any signs of this, etc.)
- Assumes a complex chain of events (Uncle flies all the way here, is spry enough to do all of this, doesn’t wake you up somehow, etc.)
- Assumes the existence of poltergeists (unknown, can’t be tested)
- As soon as existence of another dimension (unknown, can’t be tested)
The criteria of Adequacy:
Conservatism
How well a theory fits with existing knowledge.
•Fitting with background beliefs
•”Dogs lay eggs just like chickens do.”
•Doesn’t fit with background believes that are well-established
•Not absolute
•Might need to revise in light of good evidence (light travelling in straight lines vs. Bending) but need the evidence to do this)
Ad Hoc hypothesis
Hypothesis that cannot be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supported to explain.
•The earth is flat
•What about plane flights across the north and south poles?
•The devil/government makes you think you’re in a flying a plane and seeing the pole below but in fact you’re in the simulator/hallucination. 
•”For this” as in, added on for this purpose.
•Ad Hoc hypothesis makes theories less simple and therefore less credible.
•Fine if they can be independently verified, but otherwise no evidence for them
Tell him good theories from bad:
The TEST formula
Step 1: State the Theory and check for consistency.
Step 2: Assess the Evidence for the theory.
Step 3: Scrutinize alternative theories.
Step 4: Test the theories with the criteria of adequacy. 
Example:
Your car won’t start. There is snow around the car from yesterday’s snowfall but no tracks and no signs of tampering. You filled up your gas tank yesterday, the gas gauge reads full, and there are no signs of leakage. The lights and the radio work fine. When you try to start the car you hear a clicking sound like you did before when the starter was the problem.
•Possible explanations:
1. The battery is dead.
2. The fuel tank is empty.
3. The starter has malfunctioned.
4. A vandal has sabotage the car.
5. All or several of the above.
6. Each night, you are sabotaging your own car while you sleepwalk.
7. You’re 90-year-old uncle, who lives a 1000 miles away from you, has secretly been going for joyrides in your car, damaging the engine.
8. A Poltergeist (a noisy, mischievous ghost) has damaged the cars carburetor
9. Yesterday, you accidentally drove the car through an alternative space-time dimension, scrambling the electrical system.
•Testable? Fruitfulness (yields new insights)? Scope (the more a theory explains or predicts)? Simplicity? Conservatism?
Homeopathy Vs. Placebo
 Homeopathy Placebo
Testable Yes Yes
Fruitful No No
Scope No Yes
Simple No Yes
Conservative No Yes
Homeopathy claims that small amounts of substances that produce symptoms in a healthy person can clear those same symptoms in a sick person.
The alternative theory is that people taking homeopathic remedies feel better because people think homeopathy will work and so believe it to be working and feel slightly better (especially in terms of pain perception due to their altered mindset) even though it has no more affect the placebo (fake treatment).
Conspiracy theories
•Some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true. But most are implausible and absurd. Usually they fail the criteria of simplicity
•For example, 9/11 “truther” allege that Bush administration either allowed the attacks to happen or actively orchestrated them, usually to offer a pretext for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and enhance government power and surveillance over American citizens.
•But what about all the things that would have happened, and the countless government actors, who would have to participate in the cover-up and not like anything?
•The same question could be asked about the QAnon Conspiracy theory.
• Often, a conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable— every piece of counter evidence is dismissed, ignored, chalked up to government cover-up, or interpreted as actually confirming the theory.
