|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abductive Reasoning In Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
2) Is abductive reasoning a valid tool for science to use in formulating theories? It's a valid way to get an hypothesis, and to develop tests that you could do to formalize it into theory. I don't see it being much different from conjecture.
3) What are some key examples of abductive reasoning relevant to the sort of science topics regularly covered at EvC (Evolution, Big Bang, Age of earth etc. etc. etc.)? Curiously, I thought evolution was developed from deductive reasoning from examples where it is known to occur (likewise the original Theory of Natural Selection), am I wrong? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
This is where the verifiable/falsifiable predictions of a theory come in. I think you might be jumping the gun to theory (unless I read you wrong). I did a quick google on scientific method theory and got these top picks: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
quote: and Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
quote: Now a logical conclusion - by whatever method - to me qualifies as an educated guess or conjecture. This to me says that some verification needs to be done, and that it should have some independent verification, to become theory. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Then we are in agreement, and I was reading more into your previous reply than was intended. My bad.
But you have stated that the theory of evolution can be derived purely deductively (i.e. without either inductive or abductive reasoning components) have you not? Not really, just the initial hypothesis formation. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Well I think you are still wrong. I think you are misunderstanding or under-estimating the role of abductive (and inductive) reasoning in the formation of scientific theories and hypotheses. Can you explain how the hypothesis that ... Logic (deductive, inductive, abductive) → hypothesis hypothesis → Logic (deductive): if true, then it follows that {predictions} must be true:
If all known {A} is also {B} (observation) And if {A} ≡ {B} (hypothesis) Then any new {B} is also {A} (prediction) {predictions} → testing testing → new information new information → analysis: it invalidates (contradicts) or it doesn't question (neither matches nor contradicts) prediction analysis → reformulate hypothesis and predictions as needed to include new information repeat Note that failure to invalidate the {predictions} does not necessarily support the hypothesis: the new information could be just more of the {A} that is also {B} subset and there could still be {B} ≠ {A} that has not been detected yet (and which would then invalidate the hypothesis).
As I understand it deductive logic cannot go from the specific to the general. So I am intrigued as to how you think any theory/hypothesis involving a generalised statement can be deductively derived from specific observable instances. You can deduce a cause → effect pattern from several observed instances, x causes y1 (something causes a rock to fall)*x causes y2 (something causes a pencil to fall) x causes y3 (something causes a feather to fall) ... x causes yn (something causes object n to fall, where n is the number of observations involved) deduction: the pattern of cause (gravity) and effect (things falling) is the same for all n objects. then generalize (inductive\abductive) as a general application of that cause → effect pattern: x causes all y (something - gravity - causes all these objects to fall) while, in contrast, the general application is derived from a single instance (inductive) or guessed (abductive). Feel free to correct this, as I'm not wedded to it, but this is the way I read\see the process. Enjoy. * ie - fall from the hand when released and landing at, or relatively near, your feet (or the base of the leaning tower of Pisa) Edited by RAZD, : clrty, format, examples added Edited by RAZD, : mo clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
deleted incomplete\duplicate post ... to redirect:
Dr Adequate: see Message 49 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : see next post Edited by RAZD, : added redirectby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Ahhh. When in doubt pull out the Venn diagrams..... No discussion between us is complete without it .
Yes you are wrong. Curiously you did not show where or how. You will forgive me if I don't just take your - or anyone else's - word, but I'm willing to entertain an explanation of it.
Can you explain how the theory that ALL life on Earth, including as yet undiscovered species, shares a common ancestor can be derived purely by a process of deductive logic from the available evidence? Interesting that you quoted a previous post on the thread rather than the one you replied to. You will note in the post you replied to (Message 42 - note post has been edited to add an example, as shown here) where I note that, imhysao, deductive logic can be used during the hypothesis formation process:
quote: Can you explain how the theory that ALL life on Earth, including as yet undiscovered species, shares a common ancestor can be derived purely by a process of deductive logic from the available evidence? Again we seem to be talking about the same thing in different ways, as this was clarified in Message 7, and I see a similar process as noted in the example re gravity. This seems to me to be especially true for the initial formation of the theory of natural selection by Darwin, as he listed a number of situations where selection (cause) appeared to affect population traits (effect). * I am still not entirely clear on the difference between inductive and abductive, as both are basically (informed) conjectures\guesses\opinions ... ie -- if I (alone in the woods) think I see Sasquatch, but cannot verify it, then I am justified (informed) to hypothesize that they may exist, and (if I am interested) to proceed to predictions and testing of this conjecture\guess\opinion* Enjoy. ps -- *for added section* ... note I generally use word1\word2\word3 construction to imply meanings common to all words involved in an attempt to increase clarity and limit confusion. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : added ending and psby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi PaulK,
So would you agree that a theory is believed on inductive or abductive grounds ? I would say that a theory (a tested & not invalidated hypothesis) is tentatively accepted as a good\valid working model based on abductive reasoning -- it hasn't been invalidated by current testing, but still can be invalidated by new testing -- that it is a good working model to predict\apply to new situations. deductive element:
ie -- the size of (known) {A} within (possible) {B} has grown by the addition of new situations where all {A} is part of {B} is correct, and thus the hypothesis\theory that {A} ≡ {B} can still be true. abductive element:
Thus we can continue to use the existence of {B} to predict - and test for - {A}. Use of the theory to apply to new situations would be further testing of the theory to check its validity (ie everytime it is used to predict an outcome, it is being tested). See old discussions re holding a pencil over a desk and releasing it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty per comments from PaulK re predictions (see strike out at *by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate
... "I always observe P to be true" ... Would that not be deductive logic?
You can also say that it is a fact that (so far) I have always observed P to be true, while you cannot say this if it is inductive logic, yes? Enjoy. notes:
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi nwr,
Why suppose that those are the only ways of reasoning? Perhaps that's a false trichotomy. Perhaps ... can you suggest some other means of reasoning?
(firefox spell checker does not like "trichotomy" -- hmm, it doesn't like "firefox" either). Firefox spell checker does not like a lot of words, especially science terms and little used terms (consilience for example). It will also not like other forms of words added to the dictionary (different endings such as -ive and -ion). It would be interesting to have a compiled spell check dictionary from many sources similar to wikipedia ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : sleplingby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi nwr,
In mathematics, deductive reasoning begins after you have axioms. But, arguably, the most important part of mathematics is coming up with axioms in the first place. And that's what I am calling "geometric reasoning", in part because classical geometry is a good example of this. So we are talking about the generation of the basic axioms \ first principles \ a priori assumptions? Examples pertinent to this forum would be:
creationists\fundamentalists\IDologists* tend to 1 atheists tend to 2 deists\theists tend to 3 agnostics between 2 and 3 ... and then see how consistent the results are? Enjoy * in my book IDologists are similar to deists, except they put theology first and evidence second, while deists put evidence before theology (treating theology as an hypothesis rather than fact).by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Blue Jay
But, you stopped a step early: the inductive step is to then conclude that P is always true, even in cases where you haven't yet made any observations. ... Not really, imho, the inductive step would follow the deductive analysis of the new information to see how it conforms to the hypothesis:
p1: the hypothesis has been tested and new observations made p2: for all observations made so far (old and new) P is true (deductive analysis) c: it is possible that P is true for all cases p1 is establishing the new objective evidence data from testingp2 is the objective deductive analysis of the new data results compared to the hypothesis c is the tentative inductive conclusion, the proposed theory ... Of course, inductive conclusions step beyond the empirical evidence, so they are always treated as tentative. That's the whole reason for the principle of tentativity. As I see it the inductive conclusion must follow deductive analysis of the testing to conclude that the new evidence either invalidates or does not invalidate the hypothesis:
If P(new data) is true, then the hypothesis is not invalidated If P(new data) is not true, then the hypothesis is invalidated If the new evidence invalidates the hypothesis there is no (valid\rational) theory at this point, and you must start over. If this is the first testing of the hypothesis (by the author proposing it) then it is a step closer to being considered a valid accepted theory (there still remains independent confirmation \ peer review before it is accepted as a valid theory). That's my take on it, based on everything I've seen so far, regarding the scientific process of getting from untested hypothesis to tentatively proposed (ie - marginally tested by author hypothesis) theory to accepted theory. Further independent testing can lead to a theory being regarded as a "strong" theory (ie - evolution and gravity), but this is still just a greater degree of acceptance, based on the amount of evidence supporting the theory, it still is tentative. An example of this process would be cold fusion, where the authors published their proposed theory and their testing data, but independent replication\substantiation could not be made (independent results did not conform to the hypothesis), and the proposed theory went into the dustbin. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi PaulK
I like "firstky" ... sounds Slavicishky Curiously, I don't think we are really in disagreement here.
... Falsification is deductive, ... That is my point, the analysis of the new data is deductive: does it falsify the hypothesis or not (presumably such analysis has already been done for any old data)? If the new data does not falsify the hypothesis then you can move on to the next step.
quote: Here, you have run headfirst into the problem of induction. Testing a hypothesis under new conditions is certainly useful but not for your "deduction" (which is not valid). Indeed it would seem to be an abduction i.e. success in the test is better explained by the hypothesis applying, rather than chance, or some more convoluted explanation. Sorry about my lack of clarity here, and I'll clarify my conclusion in my previous post as follows:
• therefore the hypothesis is valid for the new I did NOT mean future or untested predictions, only the ones that had been tested thus far. K? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes,
RAZD writes: This seems to me to be especially true for the initial formation of the theory of natural selection by Darwin, as he listed a number of situations where selection (cause) appeared to affect population traits (effect). That's observation. From those observations in particular species, he could make the inductive hypothesis that natural selection effected all organisms around the world in both present and past Let me set up the logic here before we go further: Initial formation of the theory of natural selection as I see it:
P1: here is a list of observed situations regarding selection and population traits P2: none of these situations invalidate the concept that selection affects population traits C: therefore it is not invalid\irrational to conclude that selection affects population traits in these specific situations. The deductive element is the analysis of the data in relation to the hypothetical concept, and, IF the hypothetical concept is not invalidated, THEN you can move on to the "inductive hypothesis that natural selection effected* all organisms around the world in both present and past." * - (don't you mean affected ?) Of course this only applies to the situations listed by Darwin, and other situations could have existed but not be known by Darwin that would have invalidated the initial concept: I don't believe he would have ignored or cherry picked only situations that fit his concept, based on all his comments about what would have invalidated it.
Then, he could make an explanatory abductive hypothesis: that natural selection is the cause or driving force behind the "origin of species". Deductive reasoning comes in at this point, and is very important. It is how we decide what would necessarily follow from the hypotheses that have been made. That's how we establish what their predictions are. Of course he was working with information available at the time, but I would have said " ... is a major cause ..." as there could be (and we now know there are) other causes (neutral drift for instance, and even "major" may be an overstatement), but otherwise we are in agreement. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi nwr,
No, no, and no (in that order). Well then you will have to explain further. Just saying no here is, curiously, not enough for me. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi PaulK
Then you are only seeing the half of it. The failure to falsify does not deductively justify any use of the theory as a model at all. Even under the tested circumstances. For that you need other reasoning. ... But that is what I understood you to be saying - and that conclusion can only be justified inductively or abductively. My point stands. Curiously, you still do not seem to understand my point. Let me see if this helps: Does new information from the test 1 falsify the hypothetical concept Yes NoDoes new information from the test 2 falsify the hypothetical concept Yes No ... Does new information from the test n falsify the hypothetical concept Yes No (where n is the number of tests made) Analysis of the data: None of the new information from the tests falsifies the hypothetical concept Correct Incorrect Is this not a deductive analysis of the new information?
Then you are only seeing the half of it. ... Correct: the analysis of the new data half, not the inductive hypothesis half, where you induce that it applies outside the tested set of data. That is the "next step" after the analysis. capicheky?
quote: Then you are only seeing the half of it. The failure to falsify does not deductively justify any use of the theory as a model at all. Even under the tested circumstances. For that you need other reasoning. So my lack of clarity is from the use of "hypothesis" as opposed to "hypothetical concept" or conjecture here? ... implying that the hypothesis is already fully formed at this point? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024