The reliability of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is sometimes contested because it may end up recommending the best of a bad lot, which might require a modification of IBE (e.g. contra Schupbach). For instance, some would argue that IBE recommends to believe the best explanation only if it is good enough; others suggest that it recommends tentative inferences only.
I'm not concerned about the exact formulation of such approaches, which is certainly an open issue. But what can they even hope to achieve beyond simply conceding to the bad lot objection?
Sure, they are meant to provide conditions for the reliable application of IBE, though probably only by reflecting the attitude that one would have, in a given situation, towards the best explanation anyway (viz. in light of the bad lot objection) ...
Thanks for input!