Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 120 (672316)
09-06-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
09-06-2012 12:36 PM


It's clear simply from the description that abduction is logically fallacious.
Correct.
But it's clear from history and the existence of technology that scientific abduction produces useful, accurate information about the natural world.
No, that is not at all clear. I believe it to be false.
What is clear, is that scientific methods that have produced useful accurate information will said by some to have arisen via abduction.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2012 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2012 1:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 52 of 120 (672422)
09-07-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
09-07-2012 7:55 PM


Re: Abductive vs Inductive vs Deductive
Abductive vs Inductive vs Deductive
Why suppose that those are the only ways of reasoning? Perhaps that's a false trichotomy.
(firefox spell checker does not like "trichotomy" -- hmm, it doesn't like "firefox" either).

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 7:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 8:35 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 54 of 120 (672425)
09-07-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
09-07-2012 8:35 PM


Re: Abductive vs Inductive vs Deductive
nwr writes:
Why suppose that those are the only ways of reasoning? Perhaps that's a false trichotomy.
RAZD writes:
Perhaps ... can you suggest some other means of reasoning?
I don't know if there is a name for what is missing. Philosophers don't seem to recognize it, which is why they always fall back on induction and abduction.
I tend to call it "geometric reasoning".
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.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 8:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 11:06 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 59 of 120 (672449)
09-08-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
09-08-2012 11:06 AM


Re: Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
RAZD writes:
  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)
No, no, and no (in that order).

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 1:14 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 71 of 120 (672513)
09-08-2012 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
09-08-2012 1:14 PM


Re: Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
I am forever puzzled that people cannot see what should be staring them in the face.
Philosophers (from whom induction and abduction theses come), see observations as abstract proposition. And they see induction and abduction as a ways of inferring a more general abstract propositions from rather specific abstract propositions.
It is all completely solipsistic. Reality is not needed. It is just a matter of operations on abstract proposition.
If you look at science, it is not at all like that. It is all about reality.
I see a scientific theory as what connects those abstract propositions to reality. The theory is prerequisite to being able to make the observations from which the theory is allegedly induced or abduced.
I'm saying that induction and abduction are the creation myths of philosophy. They are every bit as true as the Adam and Eve story, but not one iota more true.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 1:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2012 2:46 AM nwr has replied
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2012 4:37 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 77 of 120 (672573)
09-09-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
09-09-2012 2:46 AM


Re: Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
When you say philosophers, do you mean "all philosophers"?
"All philosophers" would pretty much mean "all humans". So, no, I am mainly talking about academic philosophers, those who are members of university philosophy departments.
When a philosopher or a scientist claims that science uses those forms of reasoning, they do so based on observation.
That would require that the philosophers of science sit in the scientists labs, take notes, and ask the scientists questions about their reasoning. As best I can tell, there isn't much of that observation being done.
There are some people who have tried sitting in the scientists labs. They are usually known as sociologists of science. An example of this is the work of Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. The sociologists of science come up with a rather different picture of science than the one that comes from academic philosophers.
I see observation as what connects a scientific theory to reality.
[sarcasm]
Observation is a system whereby propositions magically pop into one's head.
[/sarcasm]
If you have a reference to a good philosophical analysis of observation, I would appreciate that. I have not been able to find one. The closest that I have seen is Quine: From Stimulus to Science. As I recall, he says that observation begins as surface irritations, and from those observation categoricals are derived by induction. That seems to fit my sarcastic note above.
You can't hypothesise anything about anything if you are a brain in a void and have never observed anything.
You would not come up with an Adam and Eve story, if you were a brain in a void and had not observed anything. That gives us no basis for assuming that the Adam and Eve story is other than an origins myth, nor for assuming that induction and abduction are other than origins myths.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2012 2:46 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 4:50 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2012 9:40 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 78 of 120 (672574)
09-09-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
09-09-2012 4:37 AM


Re: Before Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive reasoning ...
Please bow out of this thread.
Ok, I shall follow that advice, and leave you all to your totally evidence free ruminations.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2012 4:37 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024