This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: played it enough times. When anyone buys a lottery ticket, they do not expect to win it even in the slightest chance. However, someone always does end up winning, which would provide an objection to the best explanation of never believing to win this lottery. The explanationist would respond to this by stating that explanationism gives a natural description of so many of the inferences we actually make, such as inferring that we will not win the lottery. The explanationist would say that they don’t know whether or not they will win the lottery, they just don’t believe they will. For them, evidence for the best explanation is what they explain, and their explanations are what they infer from that evidence, because they are satisfying. As an explanationist, we are not assuming, but inferring that we will not win this lottery based on evidence from prior experiences....
View Full Document
- Fall '08
- Logic, best explanation, Explanationism