A Best Explanation of the Conflicting Views of Lipton and Salmon on Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)

This paper seeks to explain the conflicting views of Lipton and Salmon on the merits of the abductive method of inference known as Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). These two leading authors’ conflicting views are clearly documented in four chapters in Hon and Rakover’s 2001 book: “Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications”. After a detailed analysis of the differences between Lipton’s and Salmon’s views, three rival potential explanations of Lipton’s and Salmon’s differences—from three different scholars, one being Lipton—are also discussed. Then, based on an empirical test, the explanation advocated in this paper—which is inspired by Thaler’s work on behavioral economics—is selected as best. That explanation is that Lipton’s arguments in favour of IBE provide a strong behavioral explanation of how human beings (Humans) actually draw inferences, whereas Salmon’s views provide a rational normative Bayesian position on how non-demonstrative inferences should be made (by Rational Analysts, or RatAns for short). It is suggested that the cause of the difference in decision making processes used by Humans (compared to RatAns) is that Human inference making processes are the result of millions of years of evolution of our brains, and are therefore probably different to, and less reliable than, rational expert analysis of the probabilities involved, as found in Bayesianism.