Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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 67 of 120 (672463)
09-08-2012 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
09-08-2012 1:42 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
Hi again PaulK
You're still missing it. The idea that it applies within the tested data is not deductively true. ...
It applies to the analysis of the data not "within the tested data" sheesh.
The hypothetical concept\conjecture (see edit to previous post) is not falsified by the new information True Not true
Deductive: the conclusion is true if the premises are true.
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 66 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 1:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2012 6:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 81 of 120 (672588)
09-09-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
09-09-2012 5:05 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
Hi Straggler,
Sorry no **BOOM** today (as has always happened to your previous attempts).
Do you understand that pointing out that a scientific theory is deductively fallacious is not in and of itself enough to invalidate the theory in question?
Theories are necessarily deductive logical fallacies because they essentially ask if it may be true -- that's the tentativity and the challenge to falsify it, first by the author\proposer and then by peers.
When falsified it is a deductive logic analysis of a situation that does challenge the theory to adapt or die.
Deductive logic has yes or no, black or white, true or not true, questions with only one answer. It's the analytical logic to test new data against the original concept\conjecture, the tentative hypothesis, the marginally tested hypothesis, the peer tested theory, the generally accepted theory, and the massively accepted theory: does it invalidate them or not, yes or no. It's that simple, and it seems SO simple that it is ignored, it's everyday, it's done while looking at the data so quickly that one moves on to the next step: adjusting or discarding the concept\hypothesis\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 80 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 82 of 120 (672591)
09-09-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
09-08-2012 11:06 AM


basic axioms \ first principles \ a priori assumptions?
Hi All,
Straggler: let me know if you think this is off-topic and I won't pursue here.
I'm curious how many agree or disagree that these are some basic axioms \ first principles \ a priori assumptions we see here on this forum, and that they shape the debates we have:
quote:
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?
Are these not important to consider when talking about how the various forms of logic, Abductive, Inductive, or Deductive, are then applied to form a consistent whole (and where it seems that (1)s should implode, but they keep coming back from the dead ... and possibly why?)
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 58 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 11:06 AM 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 86 of 120 (672641)
09-10-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
09-10-2012 8:52 AM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
Hi Straggler,
You started out in this thread insisting that scientific theories could be arrived at by deductive logic alone. ...
Nope. That is your misinterpretation. I said it was involved in the process.
Premise: Humans paint pictures of boats
Fact: Exhibit A is a painted picture of a boat
Conclusion: Exhibit A was painted by a human
Before you get to your premise you have (conscious or unconscious) deductive analysis:
Premise: picture 1 was observed to be painted by person A
Premise: picture 2 was observed to be painted by person B
....
Premise: picture 14 was observed to be painted by person N
Conclusion: these pictures have all been painted by people (true or false deduction)
then we get to your induction element ...
Premise: Humans paint pictures of boats
Fact: Exhibit A is a painted picture of a boat
Conclusion: Exhibit A was painted by a human
... followed by abduction hypothesis (if I follow the distinctions here on this):
all pictures are painted by humans
K?
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 85 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 8:52 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 12:20 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 88 of 120 (672714)
09-10-2012 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
09-10-2012 12:20 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
Hi Straggler,
So far so good I think.
Here is a painting of a boat the origins of which are unknown: Link
Can we legitimately conclude that this picture was painted by a human?
Curiously, we also have paintings by elephants
elephant painting - Google Search
And by apes
Page not found – The Gorilla Foundation
And we also have dolphins creating things similar to art
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html
And dances by bees
bee dancing - Google Search
Art per se could be an emergent property or just creative baggage carried by other evolutionary selection processes.
Therefore the hypothesis that all paintings are created by humans is falsified.
It would need to be modified or discarded before proceeding.
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 87 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 12:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 7:45 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 1:28 AM 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 90 of 120 (672723)
09-10-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
09-10-2012 7:45 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
Hi Straggler,
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.
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 89 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 7:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2012 2:29 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 7:30 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 94 of 120 (672756)
09-11-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
09-11-2012 7:30 AM


still a falsified and in need of modification hypothesis ...
duplicate deleted
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 93 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 7:30 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 95 of 120 (672758)
09-11-2012 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
09-11-2012 7:30 AM


still a falsified and in need of modification hypothesis ...
Hi all,
Can you state what your conclusion is regarding the creator that particular painting and how it was you reasoned your way to that conclusion?
It is highly likely that the original form of this painting was created by humans due to the style and technology that would be needed to produce it in the form shown.
Note the modifications of the hypothesis in the answer.
With more abstract paintings this becomes more difficult to distinguish from elephant or ape paintings, and the hypothesis as modified still falls short, and I suspect a point can be reached where they are not distinguishable.
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 93 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 7:30 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Panda, posted 09-11-2012 9:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 12:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 98 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2012 1:20 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 99 of 120 (672843)
09-11-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by bluegenes
09-11-2012 1:20 PM


Re: still a falsified and in need of modification hypothesis ...
Hi bluegenes,
Highly likely? Highly likely! A probability estimate without maths? Good. I agree. Humans are the only known source of paintings of such technology and style. Very reasonable.
Yes, I put that in there just for you.
We can count up all the known paintings on earth (another mod that should be added to the hypothesis) and sort them into styles and attribute them to various people or groups of people, so in this case we can develop a valid source of judging likeliness in this specific case.
This is just like saying that fantasy novels are in fact fantasy novels because they are in fact fantasy novels, and not supernatural being artifacts.
Other cases, such as the abstract art would not be done so easily. You can't ignore this.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 98 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2012 1:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2012 1:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2012 2:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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