Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 6

Re: Peter WoitBeyond Experiment

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the requirement of falsifiability.  At root it is simply the idea that an empirical law is not a logical tautology.  I don’t see any reason to dispense with that just yet.  In practice the principle affords us leverage only when we have two or more theories competing to describe the same domain.

Another thing that needs to be understood is that no reasoning from Bayes’ theorem nor any inference from probabilities has anything to do with the initial abduction, which takes us from a state of unquantifiable uncertainty to the first hypothesis of a conceptual framework, model category, or reference class.  It is only after these choices are made that speaking of probabilities becomes possible.

Resources

This entry was posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 6

  1. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s