Abstract

How do we reconcile the claim of Bayesianism to be a correct normative theory of scientific reasoning with the explanationists’ claim that Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) provides a correct description of our inferential practices? This chapter articulates and defends a version of the heuristic defence of IBE. Three challenges remain that focus on the idea that IBE can lead to knowledge. Answering those challenges requires renouncing standard Bayesianism’s commitment to personalism, while also going beyond objective Bayesianism regarding the constraints on good priors. The result is a non-standard, super-objective Bayesianism that identifies probabilities with evaluations of plausibility in the light of the evidence.