Contact FutureLearn for Support
Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Inference to any old explanation

We’ve seen that scientists often proceed by inference to the best explanation: they infer that a hypothesis is probably true from the fact it would, if correct, best explain their observations and evidence.

Darwin inferred the truth of the natural selection hypothesis from the fact that it explained his observations better than any alternative.

We use inference to the best explanation in everyday life too. I’m looking out my window on a winter’s day. The grass is white. I infer that it’s cold outside. A truck carrying a load of flour could have overturned upwind sprinkling its load on my lawn, but on a winter’s day where I live that is a less likely explanation than ‘it’s cold outside. I’m looking at frost’.

The conclusions in these examples do not follow deductively from the observations or evidence. The flour truck explanation could be true; Darwin’s observations could be explained by a mischievous deity out to fool us (see the Philip Henry Gosse example in the Science and falsification video). Rather the conclusions follow from the fact that they provide the best explanation of the observations.

When making inferences to the best explanation, then, we need to that the explanations to which we infer really are the best available. Inferences to ‘any old explanation’ do not give us grounds to be confident about the truth of those explanations.

For reasons we have already encountered, however, we are often tempted to infer explanations for our observations which are not the best available. Some reasons include:

  • Most generally, people – probably all of us some of the time at least – simply fail to think very carefully about which explanation is the best. We are attracted to an explanation because of who it is offered by rather than because it makes the events it describes unsurprising and fits with the rest of best theories about the world, or because it’s striking rather than a bit tedious.

  • Confirmation bias leads us to prefer explanations which confirm our pre-existing beliefs. If we’re already sceptical about the claims of mainstream medicine, we’re more likely to accept an explanation of falling disease rates which gives little or no credit to vaccination.

  • There is a tendency, to seek ‘grand’ or complex explanations for grand events: people simply find it unsatisfying to think that President Kennedy could have been shot by a lone gunman: his death was too important to be explained by the actions of a disaffected misfit working on his own.

It is sometimes suggested that these and related reasoning vices explain (are the best explanation?) for the popularity of conspiracy theories, theories which explain events such as the assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks in the US on September 11 2001, and the moon landings, as the result of plotting by covert group or organisations.
Of course, as recent writers on conspiracy theories have pointed out, there are genuine conspiracies. Someone conspired to attack the US on 9/11: the question is who?

Understanding inference to the best explanation, however, makes clear that we have to ask whether an explanation which involves a conspiracy and, if so, a conspiracy between who, is the best explanation for what we see. When we seek explanations from this perspective, we need to bear in mind the reasons we might be tempted to prefer ‘any old explanation’ to the best explanation

Share this article:

This article is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Course highlights Get a taste of this course before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.