The Explanatory Fallacy
      

In the nearly 20 years or so of debating with various kinds of non-Christians, I have often encountered a way of thinking that I think is self-evidently flawed, but oddly common nonetheless.  What I mean is this:  as soon as you press the point, they drop the principle, recognizing it can't be maintained as tightly as was presented.  A moment later, or in another conversation, the principle is re-presented.

The principle is this:  that a proposition is true if it explains something.  Or, a belief is to be preferred if it explains something.  Or, the better belief is the one that explains the most.

At first blush, this principle seems pretty solid.  After all, don't we give weight to an idea, hypothesis, or theory if it provides an explanation for something else?  If I come across the body of a clearly murdered person and the evidence points to another person who is known to have hated the victim, wouldn't we say, "Well, that explains that.  He hated him." ?  Well, yes.  It does explain it, but it still doesn't follow that he actually murdered anyone.   The time honored tradition for hanging a murder verdict on someone does include motive- but also means and opportunity.   Merely having a hypothesis that 'explains' the facts does not prove the hypothesis.   One must corroborate it.  If it cannot be corroborated, it doesn't follow it isn't true.  We just have to be careful how we weight it.  We certainly would not (or ought not) sentence a man to death for it.
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-explanatory-fallacy/1290.html