CHAPTER 10:
ASSESSING HYPOTHESES
Historians weigh various factors in assessing competing hypotheses. Here are some of the most important:15
1. The best explanation has greater explanatory scope than other explanations. That is, it explains more of the evidence.
2. The best explanation has greater explanatory power than other explanations. That is, it makes the evidence more probable.
3. The best explanation is more plausible than other explanations. That is, it fits better with true background beliefs.
4. The best explanation is less contrived than other explanations. That is, it doesn’t require adopting as many new beliefs for which we have no independent evidence.
5. The best explanation is disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than other explanations. That is, it doesn’t conflict with as many accepted beliefs.
6. The best explanation meets conditions 1—5 so much better than the others that there’s little chance that one of the other explanations, after further investigation, will do better in meeting these conditions.
Since proposed hypotheses may do really well in meeting some of these criteria but not so well in meeting others, figuring out which hypothesis is the best explanation may often be difficult and requires skill. But if the explanatory scope and power of a hypothesis are very great, and it does a much better job in explaining a wide variety of facts, then it’s likely to be the best explanation.
So now that we’ve covered how we assess, let’s now apply these criteria to the typical hypotheses that have been offered down through history to explain the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection; using this standard of assessment, each hypothesis has the same opportunity to do better or as well in explaining these facts as the Resurrection Hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.