Methodology of Discovering the Explanatory Hypothesis: a Historical Approach

What is the methodology of discovering the explanatory hypothesis? In the contemporary era, and in the West, above all, Peirce, Harman, and Lipton have been involved in this question. Their efforts have led to the concept of inference to the best explanation, which is a type of non-comparative reasoning consisting of two stages: (1) generation of explanatory hypotheses, (2) selection of the best explanation. Therefore, the initial question will be reduced to the question of what is the methodology of each of these two stages. In the traditional era, and in the Islamic world, among theologians and jurists, two inference methods have been popular by the names (a) thrust and inversion (ṭard va aks), or rotation (davarān); (b) division and fathoming (sabr), or hesitation, which can be interpreted as anticipations of the inference to the best explanation and, in particular, applied as a methodology of step (1). This perusal will not only make rotation and hesitation defensible against the critiques of Muslim philosophers and logicians, but also, on the one hand, it will give a contemporary aspect to the methodology of the two designers, and on the other hand, it will bestow an ancient background in a completely different culture to the inference to the best explanation. These findings can be important for the history of logic, the history of speech, and even the history of the philosophy of science.