4.2 Explanation 141
can turn out to be factually untrue, thus ruling
it out.
Here is another interesting example. The
English word ‘posh’ is widely believed to be
an acronym, P.O.S.H, formed from the phrase:
Port Out, Starboard HomeThis phrase, it is claimed, dates back to the
19th century, when people travelling to India
and the Far East would normally go by sea.
Wealthy European passengers, it was said,
demanded the more expensive cabins on the
port side of the ship travelling east (out), and
on the starboard when returning (home),
because they were cooler in the hottest part of
the day. The request was allegedly written on
the tickets of these passengers using the initials
only. Hence the word ‘posh’ entered the
language as a description for persons of wealth
and position who could afford such a luxury.
It is a very satisfying, pleasing theory, and
one which seems too plausible to be wrong.
However, there is not a shred of hard evidence
for it: tickets, for example, with the initial letters
on them. Most experts (lexicographers,
etymologists and so on) dispute it. There are
other explanations offered, but ultimately the
origins of the word are not known for certain. At
any rate the acronym hypothesis looks like
being a myth, sadly. But it serves as a useful
warning. The port-out-starboard-home
explanation is so plausible, and so pleasing, that
once people have heard it, they want it to be
true; and they are disappointed when they find
out that it is at best dubious, or worse still false.
The danger of believing what we want to
believe is a serious one. It is also one of the
reasons why critical thinking is so essential to
serious inquiry and the acquisition of
knowledge.past, people were not bothering to claim. Yet
another is that advertising by law firms and
others has encouraged people to claim who
would not have done so in the past, because
they would not have thought they had a
strong enough case. The trouble with all of
these is that we still have to explain why
claims are down in all but this one category
of motor accidents. So below are two
suggestions. (There may be other plausible
suggestions, besides these.)
Suggestion 1: To make a claim for an injury,
you have to be able to pin the blame on
someone else. In the case of a motor accident,
it is usually quite easy to prove whose fault it
is. (It may be very much harder to prove that a
doctor or employer was negligent.) So
claimants, or their lawyers, go for the easiest
type of claim. That’s a possibility.
Suggestion 2: The public are very aware of
the incidence of road accidents. Most people
have either seen one, experienced one, or
know someone who has had one. Because the
other categories of accident are less common,
there is less awareness of them, and so people
are less likely to think of making a claim for,
say, a workplace accident or poor medical
treatment.
There is a third possibility, of course, and
that is that the best explanation is a
combination of these factors. Jointly they may
be more plausible than either one on its own.
When in doubt
It is often quite easy to think up a plausible
explanation, or combination of plausible
explanations, for some observed fact. But it is
often very difficult to come to a confident
decision as to the best explanation. Moreover,
as we have just seen, even the most plausible
explanation, which seems to tick all the boxes,