INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION AND THE ISSUE OF AXIOLOGICAL TARGETING

Abstract

The argument of inference to the best explanation sets
up that, given a phenomenon to be explained, several rival hypotheses race
to provide an explanation and the hypothesis that explains the phenomenon
better than its rival gives good reasons for the belief in its truth and, therefore,
for the acceptance of such hypothesis. The argument supposes that these rival
hypotheses share the same phenomenon to be explained. In this paper it is argued
that, in a few scientific episodes, scientists with different hypotheses, even if
sharing the phenomenon to be explained, have different goals regarding the
handling of the phenomenon; but then an issue arises as to the structure of the
argument, since setting different aims to handle a phenomenon would result in
an axiological targeting by the scientists, one not enclosed in the structure of the
argument. In addition, axiological targeting can also show itself as something
crucial for the issue of accepting a hypothesis, a state of affair not foreseen in
the argument of inference to the best explanation again. The purpose of this
paper is, by means of “research programs” principle by Imre Lakatos, and by
means of a case study – the acceptance of the DNA double helix model – to
sustain the concept that the axiological difference may prove to be crucial for
the acceptance of one hypothesis rather than other rival hypotheses.