Abstract

The burden of the present essay is to argue in favor of a proposition which is obviously true: that hypothesis choice in science is largely a rational procedure. This proposition needs arguing for because there is no philosophical theory, generally accepted as adequate, which explains why science is, or explains how science can be, rational. The main obstacles to an acceptable philosophical theory on this matter are the problems of induction . These problems seem to tell us that no amount of evidence can in any way raise the probability or increase the rational believability of any hypothesis not implied by the evidence. The approach taken here is to give up on solving the problems of induction and to attempt to explain scientific rationality on some other basis. There are three main elements of this theory: rational hypothesis choice is explicated as rational acceptance of hypotheses, rather than belief; pragmatic criteria are employed to limit--always tentatively--the hypotheses under consideration; choice among hypotheses is to be made in accordance with rules that have the following property: if the true hypothesis is under consideration, then the probability of choosing the true hypothesis is greater than 0.5. Such rules correspond to what are called hypothesis testing situations in statistics. The theory is illustrated and developed through a number of examples