In the relevant cases, the "outside the box" means going in directions that are contradicted by current theory. In terms of abduction, the hypothesis ...
Yes, pattern recognition is our strength, but it can also lead us astray at times. Just because we see the shape of a puppy in the clouds, doesn't imp...
I didn't do that. I brought up creativity to distinguish it from abduction. I'm reading "Against Method", and so far - it's confirming what I thought....
The hypothesis of alien landings is not an inference to the best explanation of all available facts. It could be a reasonable initial reaction to some...
Agreed. Prompted by claims made in this thread, I have begun reading Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method". His focus is on the advance of science throug...
I never said that abduction PROVIDES explanations. I said it entails process for SELECTING an explanation. And I DID outline some criteria: I also poi...
False equivalence. A conspiracy is any covert plan involving two or people. One could have a theory that a conspiracy has occurred, but the term "cons...
You haven't provided one. You've argued that science does not progress through abduction, which is a fair point, but that doesn't imply abduction is n...
From what I know of Feyerabend, he appears to be discussing the creative processes of scientists: they are not following an abductive script. Rather. ...
This strikes me as a psychological issue, or perhaps a personal philosophy of life issue. I question whether you'll find the sort of peace you seem to...
Irrelevant to the point I made: you accept some things as true, despite the possibility it is false. Not all all. Up to now, you seem to have been arg...
Then explain by what you meant by "I believe in science." False equivalence. Science is not equivalent to what individual scientists say. I'm referrin...
Accepting science means you treat the body of scientific information as true, despite the fact that it is possibly false. IOW, the mere fact that a sc...
If a conclusion were "determined" (not underdetermined) it would be a deduction- a conclusion that follows necessarily. Of course, as you said, deduct...
OK, I'll bite. I'll give a general idea of abduction. Abduction entails drawing a non-necessary inference from a set of data (intended to be all avail...
OK, then you know what abduction is, and claim that science doesn't actually use abduction. Tell me what science actually does that lends it credibili...
I didn't ignore randomness. I pointed out that (true) randomness is something outside our control. So it could account for a different outcome, but it...
Do you reject everything science teaches? Scientific theory is developed through abduction, and it has proved successful. Do you consider conspiracy t...
Assume the mind is not equivalent to the brain. Could you have chosen differently? You still had a set of background beliefs, a set of conditioned res...
I wasn't addressing induction. I was addressing rationality in general. I addressed induction in another post, and quote it below. I gave examples of ...
it's obviously possible, but this doesn't seem like the most proposing hypothesis to pursue. If I follow this correctly, they've merely observed the p...
"All swans are white" is a necessary truth if swans are defined as "white aquatic birds with long necks and xyz". But let's suppose someone inferred i...
Hume's view have been challenged by a number of philosophers. I'm just borrowing from them. A good exposition of this is in Causation (edited by Sosa ...
That may be what YOU call it. I just call it causation. You can choose to believe there is intent involved in all causation, but you cannot possibly s...
Same answer: it's a law of nature, and laws entail necessity. I'll clarify what I mean by a law: it is a relation between two TYPES of things (or amon...
But rationality WAS decisive for both of us. Contrast our rational choices with IRRATIONAL means of making a choice: basing it on the alignment of the...
:up: You can only employ your own rationality, and I can only employ mine. Your rationality is more likely to lead you to conclusions that are consist...
That does not follow. Rationality is not an oracle guaranteed to lead to a truth. But rationality is more likely to lead to truth than irrationality. ...
My position is that there are laws of nature that account for the order in the universe, and that these exist independently of us. I acknowledge I cou...
You provided rational reasons not take the bet. But another person might very well take the bet, on the basis of the probability and some good reasons...
Fair point, the choice-making process also gives us reason to believe we could have chosen differently. The choice was ours, not something imposed upo...
If the natural world produced life, and evolved a consciousness that mediated interaction with the world, it seems that this would entail an innate se...
Get Getting an indictment is a low bar, and she only succeeded on 2 of the 3 charges. It also remains to be seen if she followed the proper procedures...
A lot of religious people infer there is libertarian free will to account for being held accountable for their choices. So they aren't really inferrin...
LOL! Here's what the IG said: "While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants,...
There is no objective basis for anyone to say, "yes" - even if it is true that we could have. Consider why it seems like we could have: it's entirely ...
Relating legends is not lying. Inventing legends, to convey some (supposed) greater truth isn't lying either. Bart Ehrman compares this to the apochry...
You're referring to conspiracy theorists - a large segment of Trump's base. Had RFK stayed in the race, he could have pulled some of them away from Tr...
Trump appointee, Erik Siebert was US Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. He had assessed the case was too weak to merit prosecution, so Tru...
What made no sense is why you disagreed with my statement: You responded, "This is not true". And yet, you now actually seem to agree (you said, "sure...
Your reply makes no sense. You agree there wasn't an infinite series, and you had asserted that this entails a "God" initiating it- which is something...
Kimmel is kind of back. The 25% of network affiliates owned by Nexstar and Sinclair are not airing him. Nexstar is seeking govenment approval to acqui...
You are mischaracterising what I said. I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I think we're both right. Of course I think...
That's an unjustified conclusion. The evidence implies either an infinite series or something unique to initiate the series. Because an initial state ...
All the empirical evidence is for states that were preceded in time by another state, so this pattern would not apply to a hypothetical initial state....
I hadn't discussed "state of affairs" ontology with you, so had not used the term that way. But since you brought it up, I didn't say "it was the most...
Comments