Explanatory coherence

Abstract

This target article presents a new computational theory of explanatory coherence that applies to the acceptance and rejection of scientific hypotheses as well as to reasoning in everyday life. The theory consists of seven principles that establish relations of local coherence between a hypothesis and other propositions. A hypothesis coheres with propositions that it explains, or that explain it, or that participate with it in explaining other propositions, or that offer analogous explanations. Propositions are incoherent with each other if they are contradictory. Propositions that describe the results of observation have a degree of acceptability on their own. An explanatory hypothesis is accepted if it coheres better overall than its competitors. The power of the seven principles is shown by their implementation in a connectionist program called ECHO, which treats hypothesis evaluation as a constraint satisfaction problem. Inputs about the explanatory relations are used to create a network of units representing propositions, while coherence and incoherence relations are encoded by excitatory and inhibitory links. ECHO provides an algorithm for smoothly integrating theory evaluation based on considerations of explanatory breadth, simplicity, and analogy. It has been applied to such important scientific cases as Lavoisier's argument for oxygen against the phlogiston theory and Darwin's argument for evolution against creationism, and also to cases of legal reasoning. The theory of explanatory coherence has implications for artificial intelligence, psychology, and philosophy.

Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence

“…They have already been applied to a great many examples inference in science, law, and everyday life (see for example Thagard, 1989Thagard, , 1999Thagard, , 2000. The theory of explanatory coherence consists of the following principles: PRINCIPLE E1.…”

Comparing Holistic and Atomistic Evaluation of Evidence

“…The process of constructing cognitive coherence can be computationally implemented as a parallel constraint satisfaction (PCS) process (Thagard 1989;Thagard & Verbeurgt 1998;Holyoak & Simon 1999). A constraint is a relationship between two cognitions (propositions).…”

How Europeans See Europe : Structure and Dynamics of European Legitimacy Beliefs

“…These constraints have been formed by repeated common activation of the links. The strength of the constraint increases the more often the two elements have been thought together in the past (Runkel & Peizer 1968;McClelland & Rumelhart 1981;Thagart 1989;Eagly & Chaiken 1993). We can measure these constraints in terms of causal effects between two elements.…”

“…But the constraint in one direction does not have to be equally strong as the one in the other direction. Their relative strength depends on how frequently each direction has been activated in the past (Runkel & Peizer 1968;McClelland & Rumelhart 1981;Thagart 1989;Eagly & Chaiken 1993). The more often the constraint has been activated in the past, the stronger it is.…”