Final answer:
Using the IBE argument in favor of the existence of other minds involves explaining observed behaviors as being caused by minds similar to our own. While there's no single formal formulation for this argument, various logical versions can be used. The dualism argument, which relates to the mind-body problem, requires evidence and reasoning to be defended as a plausible philosophical stance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The IBE argument (Inference to the Best Explanation), in favor of the existence of other minds, suggests that the best explanation for the behaviors and expressions we witness from others is that they are the result of conscious, thinking minds similar to our own. The observable behaviors and biological similarities to our own bodies provide strong evidence for this explanation. In contrast, idealism presents challenges regarding physical similarities which lead to considerations of spiritual similarities instead.
There may not be a formal formulation of this argument that is strictly adhered to, but the essence is simply putting forth the best explanation for observed phenomena. It is not considered irrational to use different versions of the IBE argument, as long as they are logical and provide the best explanatory power for the topic at hand. Additionally, dualism is one framework within which this argument is often situated, creating a need for additional evidence and reasoning to defend the coexistence of both the physical and non-physical mind.
Ultimately, the problem of other minds and mind-body dualism must be addressed through careful reasoning and consideration of evidence rather than just faith-based claims. In philosophy, the stance on this issue should be supported by coherent reasoning to ensure that a plausible position is maintained, regardless of whether we are discussing dualism, idealism, or any other philosophical theory about the mind.