Abduction - Inference to the Best Explanation - -
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Showing you how and why the Peano Axioms are flawed, inconsistent and contradictory by a picture detail #283 mathematics ends at about 10^500 Re: Powerset
Next: Peano Axioms replaced by the AP-axioms of Natural Numbers #284 mathematics ends at about 10^500 Re: Powerset
From: Immortalist on 8 Jan 2010 20:09 Inference to the Best Explanation, besides who would be happy with a poor explanation? The inference to the best explanation slogan is only going to be helpful if accompanied by some account of how can the best explanation be identified? Of course, in one sense we are all going to agree that we should accept the best explanation, if only we can find out what it is - since presumably... nothing could be the best explanation of anything unless it was true. "Likeliness" or "Loveliness" The best explanation might be the best confirmed/likeliest explanation or the deepest/most pleasing explanation. Since Inference to the Best Explanation is supposed to be giving an account of support of explanatory hypotheses by evidence, inference to the likeliest explanation would appear to trivialize Inference to the Best Explanation - we would need an independent account of what made an explanatory hypothesis likely. It would seem, then, that the best explanation must be the one that does the explaining in the best way - e.g., by being simple and economical. Abductive syllogisms are of the following form: All beans from this bag are white These beans are white. Therefore, these beans are from this bag. or The surprising phenomenon, X, is observed. Hypotheses A, B, and C, A is capable of explaining X. Hence, there is a reason to pursue A. Abductive reasoning constitutes a "logic of discovery" in one of Peirce's four steps of scientific investigation. These steps are: -observation of an anomaly - abduction of hypotheses for the purposes of explaining the anomaly - inductive testing of the hypotheses in experiments - deductive confirmation that the selected hypothesis predicts the original anomaly In Peircean logical system, the logic of abduction and deduction contribute to our conceptual understanding of a phenomenon, while the logic of induction adds quantitative details to our conceptual knowledge. Although Peirce justified the validity of induction as a self- corrective process, he asserted that neither induction nor deduction can help us to unveil the internal structure of meaning. As exploratory data analysis performs the function as a model builder for confirmatory data analysis, abduction plays a role of explorer of viable paths to further inquiry. Thus, the logic of abduction fits well into exploratory data analysis. At the stage of abduction, the goal is to explore the data, find a pattern, and suggest a plausible hypothesis; deduction is to refine the hypothesis based upon other plausible premises; and induction is the empirical substantiation. Abduction is not symbolic logic but critical thinking. Abduction is not Popperian falsification but hypothesis generationis. Abduction is not hasty judgment but proper categorizationis This process of inquiry can be well applied to exploratory data analysis. In exploratory data analysis, after observing some surprising facts, we exploit them and check the predicted values against the observed values and residuals. Although there may be more than one convincing patterns, we "abduct" only those which are more plausible. In other words, exploratory data analysis is not trying out everything. Rescher (1978) interpreted abduction as an opposition to Popper's falsification (1963). There are millions of possible explanations to a phenomenon. Due to the economy of research, we cannot afford to falsify every possibility. As mentioned before, we don't have to know everything to know something. By the same token, we don't have to screen every false thing to dig out the authentic one. Peirce argued that animals have the instinct to do the right things without struggling, we humans, as a kind of animal, also have the innate ability to make the right decision intuitively. It is dangerous to look at abduction as impulsive thinking and hasty judgment. Abduction does not attempt to overthrow previous paradigms, frameworks and categories. Instead, the continuity and generality of knowledge makes intuition possible and plausible. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/abduction.html http://www.shef.ac.uk/~phil/courses/312/13ibe.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science http://logica.rug.ac.be/censs2002/abstracts/Paavola.htm
From: Zerkon on 10 Jan 2010 09:31 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:09:16 -0800, Immortalist wrote: > All beans from this bag are white > These beans are white. > Therefore, these beans are from this bag. Would Abduction reasoning translate this out to be: All beans from this open bag on that table are white These beans on the floor under the table are also white therefore, the beans are from the bag on the table
From: dorayme on 10 Jan 2010 16:45 In article <pan.2010.01.10.14.31.55(a)erkonx.net>, Zerkon <Z(a)erkonx.net> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:09:16 -0800, Immortalist wrote: > > > All beans from this bag are white > > These beans are white. > > Therefore, these beans are from this bag. > > Would Abduction reasoning translate this out to be: > > All beans from this open bag on that table are white > These beans on the floor under the table are also white > therefore, the beans are from the bag on the table My god! -- dorayme
From: Bill Taylor on 11 Jan 2010 22:55 DEDUCTION: p p => q _______ q ..................................................... INDUCTION: p q _______ p => q ................................................... ABDUCTION: q p => q _______ p .................................................. It is easier to fight for your beliefs than to live by them.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 12 Jan 2010 10:21
Bill Taylor <w.taylor(a)math.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: > INDUCTION: > > p > > q > _______ > > p => q What nonsense this is! You have a funny notion of induction. No author I've seen has tried to formalize induction thus. Indeed, it fails to capture the following completely standard inductive arguments: 2000 Americans were randomly polled. 70% of respondents said they like peanut butter. So, most Americans like peanut butter. The 9:10 bus was late 18 of the last 20 days, so it will probably be late today. Every time I ring this bell, a man appears. Thus, the man comes when he hears the bell. Three out of five people became ill after lunch. All three had tuna salad, while the other two did not. Thus, the tuna salad made the three people ill. Joe liked "The Birds", "North by Northwest", "Psycho" and "The Trouble with Harry", four films by Hitchcock. "Rear Window" is also by Hitchcock, so Joe will probably like that film, too. All perfectly standard inductive arguments, none of them fitting your form. [Note followups] -- Jesse F. Hughes "Even I, who know beyond doubt that my death will be caused by a silly girl, will not hesitate when that girl passes by." -- Merlin, as reported by John Steinbeck. |