Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind > Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind (Public)

my ignorance

<< < (26/27) > >>

Laura:
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 that 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 hopes that we can better orient ourselves in our surroundings and eliminate some of the possibilities.

Buddy:

--- Quote from: Gonzo on November 11, 2011, 08:46:57 AM ---It makes me wonder if some people might be predisposed to one form over the other as their natural approach to reasoning.
--- End quote ---

Indeed people do seem to have predispositions such as this, though not necessarily from birth, OSIT. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the main idea behind the Waldorf school was to balance the education of those people who were so inclined towards the inductive (à la the Würzburg School of Imageless Thought) that the PFC's deductive capabilities would atrophy if not addressed. The students would take their natural inclinations to experience symmetry and form (for example) and apply them to the maths, sciences and linguistics and other areas in order to integrate left-brain / right-brain activity for simultaneous functioning. Essentially, children relate what they learn to their own experience and in the process, learn the 'language of form'.

I usually don't mention abduction because it seems so similar to the non-sequiter and its negative connotations. I have probably been mistakenly thinking of abduction under the heading of induction, and referring to it as "modal logics" since I feel that most dictionaries seem to mention only the "intuition" subset of inductive thought - and we can certainly have mistaken intuitions that qualify as non-sequiters - and we can certainly understand modal logics as simply knowing when we can say "necessarily" and when we can say "possibly".

At least this is the way I'm understanding things so far and I'm a WIP!

Gonzo:

--- Quote from: ark on November 12, 2011, 01:59:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Gonzo on November 11, 2011, 08:46:57 AM ---Thanks, Bud, for elaborating on reduction versus induction.

--- End quote ---

Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal in Science

Induction, deduction, abduction, and the logics of race and kinship

Abduction, Induction, and the Logic of Scientiﬁc Knowledge Development

Very important!

--- End quote ---

Can't thank you enough. I really didn't know where to start to get a decent overview of the concepts without having to fist commit myself to studying each on in-depth, as I become aware of them. Between these links and the ones suggested by Bud and Palinurus, I certainly have my reading cut out for me.

In the end, I'm hoping to have a better understanding of my own reasoning, its limitations and how to move beyond.

Much obliged to all.

Gonzo

domwatts23:
Hmmm....this thread has been extremely interesting for me to read. I am currently doing a degree in Philosophy and Psychology and preparing my dissertation on the philosophy of science. I am also right now revising for an exam on Philosophy of Science, specifically Popper's model and its possible pitfalls. The posts by AaronAgassi have shown me with such force the reasons for any frustration which has arisen within me toward aspects of my degree, specifically philosophy. Thank you, Aaron Agassi, for showing me exactly what I NEVER want to become. You are the Gollum to the Frodo we should all aspire to become.

Unsurprisingly, however, this would not have been good enough for you. Your unerring search for 'examples of possible refutation' indicates your intentions here. Please, AaronAgassi, when you have successfully refuted every hypothesis which could possibly be applied to anything which does not conform to your current view, attempt to refute your current view. Then maybe you will learn something new.

You have your strict parameters set up for the search for knowledge; unfortunately for you, they will always be your master and you, their slave. Interestingly, I am almost certain that absolutely every word I am writing here is falling on deaf ears on your part, but there is always hope.

I have a question for you. Seeing as it is a word which you have used so often in this thread, what is truth? If you are not certain of its nature, how can you justify placing so many boundaries upon the search for it?   :huh:

PS. Everyone who has tried to help in this thread, you are saints!

QuantumLogic:
After reading the thread from beginning to end, I have found it to be a valuable instructional and observational lesson. Many may wonder why I would say this, so allow me to explain.

This thread was initiated by an individual who, in retrospect, was/is a machine by all objective observations. It was interesting to watch the response chronology as this individual began weaving the web of wordplay in order to obfuscate the true intent of the thread. I read how other knowledgeable members responded to his queries, but were only left with confusing responses from the OP. It did not take long for many see the true intent and manner of this individual, although others continued to attempt to explain what became clear was unexplainable to him/her.

Objectively, this thread is a great learning tool for those who do not have a good example or experience of "the machine at work." It clearly displays the nature of the machine and the tactics used by the control network. It also shows, by example, the examination process necessary through "The Work" in order to discern the true objective of such individuals and the processes they use. I must commend the members and the staff for their extraordinary ability to "see the unseen" here.

I see this progression quite a lot. I am a member of two other forums which I will not name, but many of you (especially Laura & Ark) know very well. They are both viewed as "hearts of the machine", but are diametrically opposite in beliefs and positions. I still hold membership to these places for one purpose- to learn the ways of "the machine". They use different tactics, but yet have the same goal- to cloud the truth with distortions and subjective beliefs. Every now and then, there actually is a good bit of knowledge posted in these places, but it is almost immediately removed or buried. When you tread in places such as these, software features such as "Scrapbook" for Firefox are priceless for capturing such filtered information.

Since I began my journey in January reading "The Wave" and many of the other works associated with it, I am realizing more of the nature of the mistakes I have made and continue to make in this journey. But I know they are necessary for me to learn the lessons, so instead of being discouraged, I look at them as being steps to be completed.

I learned much from all of you during the exchanges in this thread, and that knowledge is appreciated.