عنوان مقاله [English]
The inference of the best explanation has just been claimed as a new inference by induction and analogy by Charles Pierce in justifying many scientific theories. The purpose of this article is to make a comparison between this kind of inference and experience from Ibn Sina's perspective. In this comparison, we have tried to address all the similarities and differences between experience and inference of the best explanation, as well as some shortcomings of each. One of the similarities between these two inferences can be pointed to the intriguing premise of both inference and inductive and realism in both inference and the criterion of causal explanation in both inferences and the differences between the two inferences can be explained by better explanation criteria such as simplicity. And the attractiveness and consistency in the best explanation inferred that they were ignored in the experience while questioning the effectiveness of these criteria. In addition to these distinctions, one can point to the terms and rules that Ibn Sina added to the experience, since in the best explanation no reference is made to the rule of concurrent absences or non-fallacy of extravagance rather than bias.