-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 16679)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/sci/ - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Join us in IRC!

•This is not /b/ or /halp/. Tech support has its own board.
•If you are not contributing directly to a thread, sage your post.
•Keep the flaming at a minimum.
•Tripcodes⁄Namefags are not only tolerated here, they are encouraged.
•We are here to discuss sci-tech, not pseudoscience. Do not post off-topic.

•♥ Integris


  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 402 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Deductive, inductive or abductive? Anonymous 18/07/24(Tue)12:27 No. 16679 ID: c6e9b2
16679

File 153242807199.png - (799.65KB , 1770x2328 , thinker.png )

Hello /sci/!

Yesterday when I took a walk, I saw a bunch of huge plastic containers by the roadside in a shallow natural pit.

I considered it to be a trash dump.

What kind of reasoning did I use. Deductive, inductive or abductive?

And if I used the other two kinds of reasoning, would I reach the same conclusion? And how would I use them?


>>
Anonymous 18/07/24(Tue)16:32 No. 16680 ID: be6f8f

Any reasoning about the world external to your mind of the form "I see X therefore Y is true" is necessarily not deductive, not just because you can't prove that your senses are perceiving reality as it is, but also because even if they are, you are only perceiving a small fraction of reality, and thus you can never know when you have *all* the facts relevant to a particular conclusion. If you were to exercise pure deduction in your daily life you'd be paralized from being unable to make any decisions.

I'd say it's a form of inductive reasoning. The premise you're failing to mention is that (I assume) you've seen things that you knew were trash dumps and looked mostly similar to this thing that you saw in this instance. That's inductive reasoning.
* P(A)
* P(B)
* P(C)
Therefore P(x) for all x that are similar to all three of A, B, and C.

For abductive reasoning, you'd need to consider all the things that could possibly look like a bunch of huge plastic containers by the roadside in a shallow natural pit (from now on, "Bunch"), weight their relative probabilities of this Bunch being that, and conclude that this Bunch must be that thing with the highest probability. E.g.:
Knowing that there's a Bunch here, there is:
* A 70% probability that it's a trash dump.
* A 5% probability that it's a plastic container storage site
* A 25% probability that it's something else I'm failing to consider.
Therefore this Bunch is a trash dump.


>>
Anonymous 18/07/25(Wed)08:49 No. 16681 ID: c6e9b2

>>16680
I see.

But just because there's no pure deductive reasoning, it's still valid?

And wouldn't inductive reasoning be to explore the entire roadside and see what artifacts lay there? Because a lot of the stuff could've been explained by it blowing off from pickup trucks. But plastic containers blowing off and landing in the same area, not so much.


>>
Anonymous 18/07/25(Wed)18:01 No. 16683 ID: be6f8f

> But just because there's no pure deductive reasoning, it's still valid?

No, logically speaking only deductive reasoning is valid. That's not to say you can't fairly reliably arrive at a correct conclusion using non-deductive reasoning. Just that you have no way to verify that you're not making a mistake prior to testing your conclusion with reality. The point of a valid reasoning is that as long as your premises as correct you can be sure that your conclusion will be correct.

> And wouldn't inductive reasoning be to explore the entire roadside and see what artifacts lay there? Because a lot of the stuff could've been explained by it blowing off from pickup trucks. But plastic containers blowing off and landing in the same area, not so much.

Let me clarify my previous explanation. When I said "you've seen things that you knew were trash dumps" I didn't mean "along the same road", or "in that general area at that time". I meant that you've seen them in your life. You've seen things that you were told were trash dumps and you learned the general appearance of a trash dump.
But to answer your question, exploring the entire roadside would be gathering data (premises). It's what you do with that data that counts as one form of reasoning or another.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason