Notes on the aetiology : see https://books.google.ca/books/?id=OsKKDwAAQBAJ : Kragh, Helge and Malcolm S. Longair, eds., 2019. The Oxford handbook of the history of modern cosmology. New York: Oxford University Press. 0+ read Smeenk, chapter 13, *Philosophical aspects of cosmology* method soundness? viz. in developing my thesis on the basis of (a) and (b), if not also (c) a) surprise at the presence of a phenomenon (SPP) as the warrant for seeking an explanation of it : see `^^surprise prompts a desire to explain$`i @ ../40.a_search_for_explanations.brec : see `^^re-enter the desire to explain$`i @ ../80.abducing_a_novel_explanans.brec : see `^^again the desire to explain$`i @ ../80.abducing_a_novel_explanans.brec b) SPP reduction as a search criterion : see `^*∵ each leaves a residue of.+surprise` @ `^*- none of the.+explanations satisfies` @ 60.vetting_their_explanantia.notes.brec : see `^*-.+a variant of.+the design hypothesis can do better` @ 80.abducing_a_novel_explanans.notes.brec c) a premise that the best explanation (ceteris paribus) leaves the least SPP : see `^*- the composite explanans, unlike the others, leaves no.+residue of surprise` @ `^^accepting a composite explanans$`i @ ../80.abducing_a_novel_explanans.brec : see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ : Douven, 2025. Abduction. 1+ read : see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/ : Schickore, 2025. Scientific discovery. 1+ read where applicable : see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/ : Novaes, 2022. Argument and argumentation. 1+ read where applicable : see https://books.google.ca/books?id=oLURDAAAQBAJ : Knauff, Markus and Wolfgang Spohn, eds., 2021. The handbook of rationality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1+ read where applicable : see https://books.google.ca/books/?id=294UDAAAQBAJ : Cappelen, Herman, Tamar Szabó Gendler and John Hawthorne, eds., 2016. The Oxford handbook of philosophical methodology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1+ read Hájek, chapter 19, *Philosophical heuristics and philosophical methodology* : see https://books.google.ca/books/?id=lK6kDAAAQBAJ : Humphreys, Paul, ed., 2016. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science. New York: Oxford University Press. 1+ read where applicable : see https://books.google.ca/books?id=oLURDAAAQBAJ : Mele, Alfred R. and Piers Rawling, eds., 2004. The Oxford handbook of rationality. New York: Oxford University Press. 1+ read where applicable : see https://iep.utm.edu/explanat/ : Mayes, ????. Theories of explanation. 1+ read ⇒ solid - so say the sources below : see https://gemini.google.com/app/cc3317335dad0809#e392d17b2e937cf0 : 2026-5-19 ‘Hi Gemini, I’ve research work on my mind. I’ll tell you. My writing plan for an aetiologic essay (domain of philosophy or science) calls for using surprise at the presence of a phenomenon as the warrant for seeking an explanation of it. Moreover, I plan to premise that the best explanation (ceteris paribus) leaves the least surprise. This plan raises specific research questions. Who has given clearest thought to the relation between surprise and explanation? What need I know of that relation in order to judge the soundness of my plan?’ : see https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_labs/search/session/5767377787279625203 : ‘Find recent scholarship that uses (a) and (b), if not also (c), and defends their use: (a) surprise at the presence of a phenomenon (SPP) as the warrant for seeking an explanation of it, and (b) SPP reduction as a search criterion, if not also (c) a premise that the best explanation (ceteris paribus) leaves the least SPP.’ : see https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10670-021-00410-z.pdf : French, Steven, and Alice Murphy. "The value of surprise in science." Erkenntnis 88, no. 4 (2023): 1447-1466. : see https://people.duke.edu/~jch8/bio/Papers/J%20Consum%20Psychol%20-%202020%20-%20Calder%20-%20Distinguishing%20Constructs%20from%20Variables%20in%20Designing%20Research.pdf : Calder, Bobby J., C. Miguel Brendl, Alice M. Tybout, and Brian Sternthal. "Distinguishing constructs from variables in designing research." Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, no. 1 (2021): 188-208. - paraphrases (p. 199) Schupbach 2017 thus: ‘the best explanation is the one that takes the most “surprise” out of the effect’ : re `‘(the best explanation).+takes the most “surprise” out.+’`p cf. `^*c\).+premise that ${same}.+leaves the least SPP$` + read Schupbach 2017 : see https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcpy.1280 : Janiszewski, Chris, and Stijn MJ Van Osselaer. "Abductive theory construction." Journal of consumer psychology 32, no. 1 (2022): 175-193. : see https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-024-04683-z.pdf : Glass, David H., and Jonah N. Schupbach. "Conjunctive explanations: when are two explanations better than one?." Synthese 204, no. 2 (2024): 49. : cf. `existence of.+designer.+in turn.+explained by.+multiverse ensemble hypothesis`s @ 80.abducing_a_novel_explanans.notes.brec : my combining of design and multiverse hypotheses (rivals) to form a single, composite explanation : see https://brill.com/view/journals/gps/98/1/article-p1_1.xml : Engelhard, Kristina, Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla, Alexander Gebharter, and Ansgar Seide. "Inductive metaphysics: Editors’ introduction." Grazer Philosophische Studien 98, no. 1 (2021): 1-26. - distinguishes (§ 1.4 and Schurz co-article) two types of abduction, namely creative and selective + read Schurz in the same journal number - associates the two with, respectively, Pierce (abductive inference guy) and Lipton (inference to the best explantion) 2+ read Pierce / probably I will quote his schema : re `quote his schema` e.g. https://brill.com/view/journals/gps/98/1/article-p1_1.xml : § 1.4 : see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ : Burch, 2024. Charles Sanders Peirce. + read where applicable : see https://iep.utm.edu/peir-log/ : Bellucci and Pietarinen, ????. Charles Sanders Peirce: logic. + read where applicable 3+ read Lipton - the two correspond to my two uses of surprise (search warrant vs. search method) : re `search warrant` see `^*a\) surprise.+\(SPP\) as.+warrant for seeking`p : re `search method` see `^*b\) SPP reduction as a search criterion$` : see http://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1202/307 : Shahvisi, Arianne. "Resisting wrongful explanations." J. Ethics & Soc. Phil. 19 (2021): 168. : see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15553434211045154 : Cao, Rosa, and Daniel Yamins. "Explanatory models in neuroscience, Part 2: Functional intelligibility and the contravariance principle." Cognitive Systems Research 85 (2024): 101200. : see https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_labs/search/session/13927564898119570899 : ‘Who among scholars has recently propounded an argument in favour of a particular explanation (theory, thesis, hypothesis or whatnot) based on the criterion that it reduces surprise at the presence of the explanandum (phenomenon or thing to be explained) better than do rival alternative explanations, while also defending their use of that criterion?’ : see https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-022-04025-x.pdf : Glass, David H. "How good is an explanation?." Synthese 201, no. 2 (2023): 53. : see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Roche/publication/356442145_Purely_Probabilistic_Measures_of_Explanatory_Power_--_A_Critique/links/619bd58c61f0987720c58757/Purely-Probabilistic-Measures-of-Explanatory-Power--A-Critique.pdf : Roche, William, and Elliott Sober. "Purely probabilistic measures of explanatory power: A critique." Philosophy of Science 90, no. 1 (2023): 129-149. : see https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10539-021-09831-0.pdf : Chellappoo, Azita. "When can cultural selection explain adaptation?." Biology & Philosophy 37, no. 1 (2022): 2.