Having Your IBE and Eating it Too: Arguments for Inflationism about Natural Laws

In this paper, I explain the strengths of Dretske and Bird's arguments for inflationist theories of laws of nature, focusing on those which Kreines refers to as 'Brute Coincidence' and 'Explanation' arguments. Central to the debate is the principle of inference to best explanation (IBE), which states that we have reason to believe the hypothesis that best explains a given body of evidence. Inflationism requires this IBE principle to defend the knowability of natural laws, leaving the theory vulnerable to an empiricist rejection of IBE. However, I argue that deflationism implicitly assumes IBE in its own appeal to simplicity. Moreover, given IBE as a valid principle, inflationism is a stronger theory of natural laws, because it offers far greater explanatory depth with comparatively little cost to simplicity. The deflationist must either renounce IBE and forfeit the basis for one of their foremost advantages, or admit IBE and risk being forced to accept inflationism.