On Not Counting the Cost: Ad Hocness and Disconfirmation

I offer an account of ad hocness that explains why the adoption of an ad hoc auxiliary is accompanied by the disconfirmation of a hypothesis H. H must be conjoined with an auxiliary (or set of auxiliaries) a′, which is improbable antecedently given H, while ~H does not have this disability. This account renders it unnecessary to require, for identifying (bad) ad hocness, that either a′ or H have a posterior probability less than or equal to 0.5; there are also other reasons for abandoning that condition. I distinguish between formal ad hocness, which is bad in the probabilistic sense that it results in disconfirmation of H, and argumentative ad hocness, which actually involves bad reasoning on the part of a subject. The latter is what I call “not counting the cost.” This distinction allows us to see why the 0.5 condition appeared attractive in the first place. The concept of not counting the cost also has implications for other areas of research, including both a Bayesian concept of unfalsifiability and the classic epistemological question of the problem of the external world.