The article discusses the process of assessing different explanations for a phenomenon using a method of elimination. It outlines that explanations need to meet certain objective criteria to be credible, such as avoiding vagueness, ambiguity, and circular reasoning. These criteria serve as baseline standards, and failure to meet them disqualifies the explanation from serious consideration. Furthermore, while scoring frameworks may help compare explanations, they carry inherent subjectivity, resulting in potential disagreement among reasonable individuals. The article also critiques how conspiracy theories often flout these standards, despite their claims of validity.
An explanation must avoid being vague, ambiguous, or circular. If it fails to meet these minimal standards, then it is not worth considering at all.
To assess the competition between explanations, one must employ some objective standards. This process involves scoring each explanation and comparing them.
While a scoring metaphor aids in assessing explanations, it's important to recognize that this process admits degrees of subjectivity, leading to potential disagreements.
Conspiracy theories often claim to best explain the facts, but they typically fail the objective standards used for assessing credible explanations.
Collection
[
|
...
]