|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abductive Reasoning In Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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, : 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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.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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 APremise: 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, : 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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 elephantselephant painting - Google Search And by apesPage not found – The Gorilla Foundation And we also have dolphins creating things similar to arthttp://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html And dances by beesbee 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.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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
duplicate deleted
Edited by RAZD, : .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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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, : .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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024