In this group, tools such as play materials, puppets, art materials or diagrams (for instance with multiple choices of facial expressions depicting emotions) may be used to facilitate recall and explanation of experiences.
One prominent alternative view is that general hypotheses offer explanations of experience, and that we reason from experience by inferring the best explanation of our data against a background of theoretical assumptions that are subject to tests on other occasions and in other contexts.
First there is the generation of a hypothesis which serves as an explanation of the experience or an endorsement of the content of the experience.
The delusion is not an explanation of the experience, but an endorsement of it: the content of the experience is taken as veridical and believed.
For example, some of its hard-nosed advocates undertake to postulate a soul or a god, if doing so turns out to be part of the best explanation of our experience, for that would be an application of scientific method.
First, perhaps the A- theorist can produce a simpler explanation of our experience.
So Kant's explanation of objective experience appeals to them, and not to the effects of any alleged mind-independent objects.
Before considering whether the representative realist explanation of sensory experience is really the best one, we need to consider in more detail what the rationale for that explanation might be.
Thus, explanation of our experience is unaffected by the "narratability failure" problem of Albert 2013: the wave function description might be different for different Lorentz observers, but the description in terms of densities of particles is the same.
We should not expect to have a detailed and complete explanation of our experience in terms of the wave function of 1033 particles that we and our immediate environment are made of.
