Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
Straggler
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 2 (672176)
09-04-2012 1:33 PM


In this thread I want to get to grips with abduction and it's role in science. Here from the wiki page on Abductive Reasoning is a brief synopsis of what abduction entails in comparison to the more familiar inductive and deductive methods of reasoning:
Wiki writes:
Deduction allows deriving b from a only where b is a formal consequence of a. In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion. For example, given that all bachelors are unmarried males, and given that this person is a bachelor, it can be deduced that this person is an unmarried male.
Induction allows inferring b from a, where b does not follow necessarily from a. a might give us very good reason to accept b, but it does not ensure b. For example, if all of the swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed. (Indeed, it turns out that some swans are black.)
Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b. For example, after glancing up and seeing the eight ball moving towards us we may abduce that it was struck by the cue ball. The cue ball's strike would account for the eight ball's movement. It serves as a hypothesis that explains our observation. There are in fact infinitely many possible explanations for the eight ball's movement, and so our abduction does not leave us certain that the cue ball did in fact strike the eight ball, but our abduction is still useful and can serve to orient us in our surroundings. This process of abduction is an instance of the scientific method. There are infinite possible explanations for any of the physical processes we observe, but we are inclined to abduce a single explanation (or a few explanations) for them in the hope that we can better orient ourselves in our surroundings and eliminate some of the possibilities.
In this thread I want to ask:
1) How widely is abductive reasoning used in science?
2) Is abductive reasoning a valid tool for science to use in formulating theories?
3) What are some key examples of abductive reasoning relevant to the sort of science topics regularly covered at EvC (Evolution, Big Bang, Age of earth etc. etc. etc.)?
4) Can we 'do science' without abductive reasoning? Or is it a vital component of the scientific method?

Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 2 (672178)
09-04-2012 1:49 PM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the Abductive Reasoning In Science thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024