Is it evidentially and scientifically valid to conclude that
this picture of a boat was painted by a human? Or not?
You seem to be advocating a form of science which makes it impossible to validly draw conclusions about events which haven’t been directly witnessed. But the whole point of abductive reasoning is that we can, and successfully do, exactly that.
RAZD writes:
There are a number of issues I could raise if I wanted to (is it a reproduction rather than the original (which could have a known author), something computer made from an old photo, etc etc etc), but that would be skating around the issue that no matter how many you choose to discuss, the hypothesis is falsified by the elephants and apes, and it needs to be discarded or modified before the discussion is worth my - and your - time.
Then feel free to discard that hypothesis in your answer as to whether or not that particular painting was created by a human. I am simply asking you what the evidential and scientifically legitimate conclusion is regarding whether that particular painting was created by a human or not.
If you want to say that it is just as likely to have been painted by an elephant or a horse or an ape as a human then you are welcome to do so. All I ask is that you explain the reasoning being applied to come to whatever you consider the evidentially and scientifically valid conclusion here. That is what this thread is about. The reasoning that lies behind evidentially valid conclusions.
Can you state what your conclusion is regarding the creator that particular painting and how it was you reasoned your way to that conclusion?