Correction: (max 500 charact.)
The complaint will not be published.
I 182
Best Opinion/ethics/morality/Wright: we will see in Chapter 5 that moral issues do not occur in the best explanations of our moral beliefs.
>
Best Explanation/Wright .
I 196f
Best explanation/Wright: an explanation cannot be the best if it does not contain certain details. (But this is not supposed to be any naturalistic or scientific reductionist kind of explanation).
An explanation will not be considered the best, as long as there is a competing equally good explanation, but which does not use the cognitive susceptibility.
If such a declaration is actually equally good, it will explain why the (different) person in his community does not stand out.
>
Community , >
Language community , >
Convention .
But then, the entire community can be considered deficient.
The specific cognitive ability, thus becomes a fifth wheel.
>
D. Wiggins , >
Cognitive Coercion , >
Causal Role .
I 240
Best explanation/Physics: should the best explanation not always be the same? Finally, the causal antecedents are, so to say, already in place, whatever the fate of the theory will be later.
Why should the best explanation go beyond the statement of reasons and laws that precisely explain the forces that generate our beliefs?
Wright: There is no reason why the best explanation should refer to any state of affairs which actually conveys truth to the theory, as we assume.
Best explanation/Physics/Wright: should consist in scientific heritage, as well as in observations and certain psychological laws.
>
Explanation/Harman .
((s) So there is no mentioning of the facts.)
Could the best explanation not always be "done better" , by always searching for a more fundamental level (for example: subatomic, etc.) If explanations are only best if they are valid, then they will always "overtake" their content.
>
Assertibility , >
Superassertibility , >
Ideal assertibility .