Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:24:11.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENTIAL IMPACT OF UNEXPLAINABLES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2017

Dominik Klein  and
Matteo Colombo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What's the evidential impact of learning that something is a mystery? To answer this question, we first explicate the notion of a mystery in terms of unexplainability. After distinguishing different ways in which something can be unexplainable, we develop a test to evaluate the evidential impact of two distinct types of unexplainables: symmetrical and asymmetrical unexplainables. We argue that only asymmetrical unexplainables have evidential impact. We finally clarify how our explication of mysteries as unexplainables complements existing accounts of abduction and contributes to the literature on the mystery of consciousness.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 463 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1975. Summa contra Gentiles, Anderson, J. F. (transl.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. and Hartmann, S. 2003. Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. 2016. ‘Experimental Philosophy of Explanation Rising: The Case for a Plurality of Concepts of Explanation.’ Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12340.Google Scholar
Douven, I. 1999. ‘Inference to the Best Explanation Made Coherent.’ Philosophy of Science (Proceedings), 66: S424–35.Google Scholar
Douven, I. 2011. ‘Abduction.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1965. ‘The Inference to the Best Explanation.’ Philosophical Review, 74: 88–95.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N. and Lewontin, R. C. 2014. ‘The Mystery of Language Evolution.’ Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 401.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. ‘Aspects of Scientific Explanation.’ In Hempel, C. G. (ed.), Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 331–496. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1748/2000. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Beauchamp, T. L. (ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. 2014. ‘The Stability Theory of Belief.’ Philosophical Review, 123(2): 131–71.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1991. The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’ Reprinted in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edition, pp. 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skow, B. 2016. Reasons Why. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1980. ‘Higher Order Degrees of Belief.’ In Essays in Memory of F.P. Ramsey, pp. 109–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. 2003. ‘The Unfinished Business of Trinitarian Theorizing.’ Religious Studies, 39(2): 165–83.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Voltaire, . 1764/1901. Philosophical Dictionary, in The Works of Voltaire, vol. 11. New York, NY: E. R. DuMont.Google Scholar