Conclusion: The Classical Arguments Defeated

Abstract

In the previous three chapters, I have explored the problem of auxiliary assumptions (PoA)—difficulties for empirical survival arguments that originate from the auxiliary assumption requirement (AAR)—first broached in §7.3.2, further discussed in §8.2.1, and systematically developed throughout Chapter 9. In Chapter 8, I argued that AAR generates problems for Bayesian survival arguments by negatively impacting both the prior probability and the explanatory power of the survival hypothesis. In Chapter 10, I explored the latter in considerable detail by examining how the appeal to living-agent psi (LAP) poses a challenge to the ostensible explanatory power of the survival hypothesis. My argument drew heavily on the implications of AAR, as AAR significantly alters the landscape of the traditional counter-explanation or CE-challenge.