Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 120 (672580)
09-09-2012 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
09-08-2012 1:50 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
RAZD writes:
Deductive: the conclusion is true if the premises are true.
But do you understand, and accept, that a conclusion incorporating abductive reasoning can be entirely evidentially and scientifically valid whilst also being fallacious in strict deductive terms? 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?
(**BOOM**) - That was the sound of RAZ's head exploding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 120 (672635)
09-10-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
09-09-2012 7:34 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
You started out in this thread insisting that scientific theories could be arrived at by deductive logic alone. If you have changed your mind and now accept that non-deductive reasoning is a necessary component of formulating scientific theories then that is progress of sorts. But let’s see
Premise: Humans paint pictures of boats
Fact: Exhibit A is a painted picture of a boat
Conclusion: Exhibit A was painted by a human
This is an example of ‘affirming the consequent’. In purely deductive terms the conclusion is logically fallacious. The theory that ALL paintings of boats, including those of unknown origin, were painted by humans is falsifiable and tentative and not able to be derived deductively. But given considerable positive evidence of humans painting pictures of boats and no objective evidence of any other source of such pictures the conclusion above would be evidentially and scientifically valid despite being deductively fallacious.
Would it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 9:33 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 120 (672653)
09-10-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
09-10-2012 9:33 AM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 7:21 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 120 (672719)
09-10-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
09-10-2012 7:21 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
So you don't think we can legitimately and confidently conclude that the picture I linked to, the painting of a boat which is of unknown origin, was painted by a human?
Whatever your answer please be explicit. And please explain the modes of reasoning you used to come to that answer.
But dude - Seriously - Is there any doubt that particular painting was done by a human? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 8:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 93 of 120 (672749)
09-11-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
09-10-2012 8:09 PM


Re: theory acceptance and as a good working model
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 8:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 8:25 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 8:59 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 120 (672792)
09-11-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
09-11-2012 8:59 AM


Relative Likelihood
RAZD writes:
It is highly likely that the original form of this painting was created by humans..
So — Just to be absolutely clear - You consider it evidentially and scientifically legitimate to confidently conclude that the painting in question is far more likely to have been created by a human than a horse or an ape or an elephant or an alien or anything else non-human. Is that correct?
If so — Can you explain the reasoning process that led you to this (very sensible IMHO) conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 8:59 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 102 of 120 (672927)
09-12-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
09-12-2012 2:56 AM


Re: Dismissal of unsupported alternatives.
bluegenes writes:
Abductions are often treated as facts when they're strong.
I think this point needs to be stressed. It needs to be stressed because there are participants in this thread who seem to consider abductions to be the basis of mere conjectures rather than the main basis for forming high confidence conclusions about specific cases.
And in the wider, non-adbuction specific, context the dismissal of unsupported alternatives is a pretty big step forwards too

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2012 2:56 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2012 7:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 104 of 120 (672968)
09-12-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
09-12-2012 7:01 PM


Re: Dismissal of unsupported alternatives.
I doubt it. But feel free to answer the questions laid out in the OP.
I reccommend Dr A's early posts in this thread as a succinct summary of the role of different forms of reasoning in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2012 7:01 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 120 (673414)
09-19-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 1:49 PM


Proof and Fallacy
You keep on using the words "proof" and "fallacy". This thread is about abductive reasoning.
Do you even know what abductive reasoning is....?
Perhaps you could tell us what you think it is? Then it might become more obvious to the rest of us why you think demands of proof and talk of fallacies are relevant here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:49 PM Hawkins 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