Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 120 (672184)
09-04-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-04-2012 1:33 PM


hypothesis
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 1:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 4:53 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 12:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 5:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 120 (672194)
09-04-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
09-04-2012 4:53 PM


Re: hypothesis
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:
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
and Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
quote:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 4:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 5:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 120 (672208)
09-04-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
09-04-2012 5:30 PM


Re: hypothesis
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 5:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 6:29 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 120 (672372)
09-07-2012 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
09-04-2012 6:29 PM


Re: hypothesis
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 clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 6:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2012 2:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 120 (672410)
09-07-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
09-07-2012 4:32 PM


redirect
deleted incomplete\duplicate post ... to redirect:
Dr Adequate: see Message 49
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : see next post
Edited by RAZD, : added redirect

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 4:32 PM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 120 (672414)
09-07-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
09-07-2012 4:32 PM


Re: hypothesis
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:
Logic (deductive, inductive, abductive) → hypothesis
...
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)
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 ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 4:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2012 2:00 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2012 4:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 120 (672418)
09-07-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
09-07-2012 2:30 PM


theory acceptance and as a good working model
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:
  • the hypothesis was tested for (new) predicted situations
  • the hypothesis was not invalidated by any of the new situations
  • therefore the hypothesis is valid for the new predicted* tested situations as well as (all) old situations.
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:
  • it is rational to use the theory to predict the results of new situations.
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 *

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2012 2:30 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 2:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 120 (672421)
09-07-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
09-07-2012 5:08 PM


Abductive vs Inductive vs Deductive
Hi Dr Adequate
... "I always observe P to be true" ...
Would that not be deductive logic?
  • I observe P to be true in case A
  • I observe P to be true in case B
  • ...
  • I observe P to be true in case N (where N is the total number of observations involve)
  • Therefore I always observe P to be true (... so far).
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:
  • 'true' and 'fact' are not used as absolutes but close approximations, as previously discussed on the thread about "KNOWING" vs "knowing" (I forget which one it was, but I believe Straggler started it). Science approximates reality by testing and throwing out what does not appear to be "TRUE" so the approximations of 'truth', 'fact' and 'knowledge' become closer to "TRUTH", "FACT" and "KNOWLEDGE" as time passes, where
  • the use of 'truth', 'Truth' and 'TRUTH' etc is taken from jar's distinctions of tentativity to absolute versions of the words, and
  • it is possible to 'know' 'truth' and 'fact' ... it may be possible to 'Know' 'Truth' and 'Fact' (very close approximations, laws), but it is highly problematic that we could 'KNOW' 'TRUTH' and 'FACT' (ie we would need to be omniscient to reach these absolute levels)

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 5:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 09-07-2012 8:09 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 09-07-2012 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 120 (672423)
09-07-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
09-07-2012 8:09 PM


Re: Abductive vs Inductive vs Deductive
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, : slepling

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 09-07-2012 8:09 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 09-07-2012 9:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 120 (672448)
09-08-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nwr
09-07-2012 9:34 PM


Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
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:
  1. GDI: god did it (ie - ultimately meaning everything you see is illusion\deception)
  2. WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get (ie - evidence doesn't mislead\lie)
  3. COMBO: a combination of 1 and 2 (ie - evidence shows how god did it)
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).

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 09-07-2012 9:34 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 09-08-2012 11:29 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 120 (672451)
09-08-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Blue Jay
09-07-2012 10:40 PM


steps from initial hypothesis to accepted theory
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 testing
p2 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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 09-07-2012 10:40 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 120 (672453)
09-08-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
09-08-2012 2:56 AM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
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:
deductive element:
  • the hypothesis was tested for (new) predicted situations
  • the hypothesis was not invalidated by any of the new situations
  • therefore the hypothesis is valid for the new predicted situations as well as (all) old situations

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 predicted* tested situations as well as (all) old situations.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 12:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 120 (672458)
09-08-2012 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bluegenes
09-08-2012 2:00 AM


hypothesis and data analysis
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2012 2:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2012 7:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 120 (672459)
09-08-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nwr
09-08-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 09-08-2012 11:29 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 09-08-2012 11:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 120 (672461)
09-08-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
09-08-2012 12:50 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
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 No
Does 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:
... If the new data does not falsify the hypothesis then you can move on to the next step.
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, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 12:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 1:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024