Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Guillermoe: Champion of Abductive Reasoning at the Heart of the Design Inference

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

Guillermoe has very quickly become one of our most ardent critics on these pages. That is why it was so interesting to watch him walk right into a trap that HeKS cunningly set for him. Here it is:

THE TRAP

Guillermoe:

We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!!

HeKS:

How do you know this?

Guillermoe:

PAST EXPERIENCE. We know humans build things because we have observed that they do.

HeKS:

How do you know it was humans rather than aliens?

Guillermoe:

Because our past experience proves that humans exist and does not prove that aliens exist, so it’s much much more likely that humans built Stonehenge. That allows us to say A LOT of things about the designers of Stonehenge. What can we say about the intelligent designer of life on Earth?

Guillermoe obviously did not see the trap. Not only did he walk right into it, but the trap was so craftily set that he did not realize he was in it once he was there. Let’s see how.

Step 1: Guillermo admits there cannot be the slightest doubt that the circle of upright stones in Wiltshire, England known as Stonehenge was designed. He insists that we can know it was designed only because we can “know” that humans designed it.

Step 2: HeKS sets the trap by asking how we “know” it was designed by humans instead of, say, aliens, and Guillermoe walks right into the trap and makes himself at home. Guillermoe appeals to universal experience to make an inference based on abductive reasoning. To see how this is so, let us take a moment to explore the nature of abductive reasoning.

ABDUCTIVE REASONING

Abductive reasoning takes the form of inferring a cause X as an explanation for an effect Y when X is the most plausible explanation for Y. So, for example, if my lawn is wet this morning I might infer that it rained last night as the best explanation for the lawn being wet.

Abductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning if the premises are true the conclusion follows necessarily as a matter of logic. But even if the premise of the abductive inference is true (rain the previous night makes my lawn wet in the morning), the conclusion might nevertheless be false. It is possible, for example, that someone drove a water tanker and sprayed my lawn with water. Thus, an abductive inference is not logically compelled like a deductive conclusion. That is why it is called “inference to the BEST explanation,” not “inference to the only explanation”. Note that when a particular cause X is the only known cause of a particular effect Y, the abductive inference is much stronger.

GUILLERMO MAKES AN ABDUCTIVE INFERENCE

HeKS asked Guillermoe how he knows that humans rather than aliens built Stonehenge, and Guillermoe made the following abductive argument:

1. Stonehenge is a monument.

2. With respect to all monuments whose provenance is actually known for certain, the sole known cause of the monuments has been “built by humans.”

3. Therefore, it is much more likely (inference to best explanation) that humans built Stonehenge.

Guillermoe’s argument took the form “X is the generally most plausible cause of effect Y. We see a specific instance of Y; therefore the best explanation of this instance of Y is X.” In other words, we infer that X is the best current explanation of this Y.

Guillermoe moved off of his original overstated conclusion. He went from we “know” who built Stonehenge (obviously we know no such thing) to its “much more likely that humans built Stonehenge” (a perfectly sound abductive inference).

Notice how without knowing it Guillermoe has given away the store from a materialist perspective. He has tacitly acknowledged that with respect to a particular instance of apparent design, we cannot make an infallible deductive conclusion concerning the provenance of the design. The best we can do is make an abductive inference to best explanation. In doing so Guillermoe has validated the mode of reasoning at the heart of the ID program.

In exactly the same way, the ID proponent observes some aspect of living things that even the most ardent atheist will admit appears to be designed for a purpose, the digital code in DNA for example. He then notes that X (intelligent agency) is a possible cause of this effect Y (digital code). He goes one step further and notes that “intelligent agency” is the only known cause of the effect “digital code” where the provenance of the digital code has been actually observed. Therefore, we infer that the best explanation for this particular instance of digital code is “intelligent agency.”

Guillermoe is well and truly stuck. With respect to the DNA code effect, for example, in order to wiggle out of the trap set by his own reasoning he has three options:

1. Deny that the DNA code is a digital code. This is absurd.
2. Deny that the only known cause of digital code where the provenance is actually known is intelligent agency. An obvious falsehood
3. Beg the question by saying we “know” chance/necessity can account for the DNA code. Of course, we “know” no such thing. It is routinely assumed; it has never been demonstrated.

Without abductive reasoning, science wouldn't even get off the ground since abductive reasoning is integral to the formation of hypotheses. No hypotheses, no science.Vishnu
October 7, 2014
October
10
Oct
7
07
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
@idismyth #65 Yes, it really does matter. There's a reason why there's a distinction between the different forms of logical argumentation. The type of argument someone is using directly impacts how certain or tentative the conclusion of the argument can or must be. For this reason, it's important to understand that ID makes an abductive argument so that one does not attempt to argue against it on the basis of claims that it does not make in the first place, as Guillermoe has been doing for the past several days. If you try to argue against ID by claiming that its methods have failed to successfully prove beyond all possible doubt that something was designed, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. ID does not claim that it can prove that beyond all possible doubt, as the ability to do that is simply beyond what the nature of the ID argument can do. ID is making a claim as to what is the BEST explanation based on our current knowledge. It is not making a claim as to what is DEFINITELY the CORRECT explanation, immune to any possible future evidence. It's also important to understand the different forms of argumentation so that you can realize that this aspect of ID (offering only the currently best explanation rather than the certainly correct one) is not a unique weakness of ID, since abductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in the historical sciences, among which Evolution is included, which uses the same form of argumentation.HeKS
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
When side A resorts to defending their views by arguing the details and semantics of what type of reasoning is being used by side B, side A is on thin ice. Abductive? Deductive? LSD influenced? Does it really matter? If you can't convince the lay person using simple English, you might as well give up.idismyth
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Mark Frank, is Bayesian analysis/inference a form of logical reasoning or not? If it is not a form of logical reasoning is it a form of illogical reasoning? If it is a form of logical reasoning how does it fail to fall under the three categories of logical reasoning Barry set forth? Mung:
To borrow a question from Barry, is Bayesian analysis 1. Deductive; 2. Inductive; 3. Abductive; 4. Other?
Mark Frank:
Other – it is the justification of all stochastic inference – so it can be applied to both inductive and abductive inference.
You are either asserting that Bayesian analysis is illogical or that it is not illogical. So which is it?Mung
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Guillermoe
Vishnu: “When you look at a DNA/Ribosome replicator you’re looking at coded information “right in the face.”” Guillermoe: And what’s the explanation ID gives for DNA/ribosome replicators?
You obviously missed my point. You asked a question, "Choose one biological feature you like and and tell me what ID explains of it." SETI is looking for coded information because it is a hallmark of intelligence. Coded information is right there in DNA/ribosome replicator. What ID "explains of it" is that it is abductively the most reasonable view at this point to hold, that an intelligent source is the source of the DNA/ribosome system. If it is rational to think that the most plausible source of coded information from outer space is the product of intelligence as SETI abductively assumes, why is not proper to abductively conclude (tentatively, of course, given our current understanding of physics and chemistry) that the coded information in the DNA/ribosome replicator is the product of intelligence? Have you written a letter to SETI telling them why they are wrong in making such an assumption about coded information as being a plausible indicator of an intelligence source? If not, why not?
Saying that a DNA/ribosome replicator is code information is describing it (something that is obtained from genetics and molecular biology), not explaining it.
And by describing I associate it in all known instances where the origin of coded information is known, it always is the product of intelligence. That is a partial explanation.
Why don’t you try again?
I have said what I wanted to say. If you think there is something wrong with my reasoning, feel free to explain why.Vishnu
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
@G'moe #51 Congratulations Guillermoe. This one might earn you a new OP. In comment #4 you said that intelligent design by humans is…
the most plausible [i.e. the best] explanation to Stonehenge.
You also said this:
my biggest claim against ID is that there is no natural feature for which you can give a useful explanation from ID (I mean, an explanation of how it came to be)
This issue popped up again in your comment #11:
Choose one biological feature you like and and tell me what ID explains of it.
You have made this, in one form another, numerous times in numerous threads. In light of the fact that you said human intelligent design is the best explanation for Stonehenge, in comment #19 I asked if you could please provide me with a definitive account of who the (probably human) individuals were who built it, what purpose it was built for, and what methods were employed in building it. You could not provide an answer for any of these three criteria. Beyond thinking that the designers of Stonehenge were most likely humans, you could not give any definitive account of their identity, or why they designed Stonehenge, or how they built Stonehenge. Instead, you merely asserted:
just by knowing they were humans I can tell a lot about them. We all know what humans are exactly. I can tell you their shape, how their physiology works, some of their habits, etc.
“If you don’t want to be made an object lesson, consider the criticisms of people who obviously have more familiarity with the subject matter and adjust your arguments to address the actual position of your opponents rather than blithely powering on with your misunderstandings, strawman arguments and irrelevancies.”
Intersting. If I am just asking question, I would say that misunderstandings come from your lack of answers you claim you have.
I answer your questions, Guillermoe. The problem is that you either ignore the answers, come back with different errors in place of the ones I've corrected, or don't answer the questions I ask in order to either get a sense of what you're really looking for or get you to realize, in answering it, that your question itself is misguided. An example of such a question was the one I asked you in comment #13, but its probably moot now, since I think the same point was better made with the present line of questioning.HeKS
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
@G'moe #50
Since the point here is abductive reasoning, let’s try it a little bit. Fact: I see a white horse. Question: Why is the horse white? Possible answer: because horses are always white. Analysis: 1) If horses are always white, an animal that’s not white can’t be a horse. 2) If an animal that’s not white can’t be a horse, to be horse an animal has to be white. 3) If to be a horse an animal has to be white, horses are always white. Anyone see the fault? How do we correct this? Replace “horses” with “complex life” and “white” with “designed” and guess what we’ll get.
Does anyone see the fault? The? G'moe, it's hard to even count the faults, as usual. What you've tried to do here is completely nonsensical. First of all, I thought we were going to discuss an abductive argument that makes a tentative inference to a best explanation, not a circular argument that makes a deductive conclusion that is immune to future evidence. Nothing that you just wrote has any relation to either the form of abductive arguments in general or to the form of an abductive inference to design in particular. You try to suggest that if we take your bizarre attempt at a parody argument and "Replace 'horses' with 'complex life' and 'white' with 'designed'" we will somehow have something akin to the design inference. This is completely ridiculous. Apart from your failure to accurate reflect the nature and form of an abductive argument, "white" is an adjective here, not a cause. Whiteness cannot stand in a creative causal relationship to anything, but intelligent design can and does stand in creative causal relation to things all the time. A statement like, "The horse began to exist because it was white" is nonsensical. Conversely, a statement like, "Complex life began to exist because it was designed" makes perfect sense. This is the problem with you Guillermoe ... like I said in comment 17, you write with a degree of arrogance and self-assuredness that far exceeds your grasp of the relevant issues. In your own little fantasy world you think you're laying bare our absurdities, but in the real world you're just continuing to demonstrate with reckless abandon that you have no understanding of these issues or how to make a proper argument, and no ability to accurately analyze the arguments of your opponents.HeKS
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Guillermo,   Are you familiar with the general axiom that information requires a material medium in order to be exchanged?   In other words, written language requires something like an arrangement of ink and paper to serve as a medium, an ant’s pheromone requires an arrangement of a particular chemical compound to serve as a medium, spoken language and animal vocalization require an arrangement of variations in air pressure to serve as a medium, a computer program requires an arrangement of electromagnetic impulses to serve as a medium, when an animal uses vision its optical faculties transcribe light waves to neural impulses that are used as a medium sent to its visual cortex, etc., etc., etc.   You might even turn the thing around as say that in order to exchange information, either the matter or energy within the cosmos must be used as a medium, or else, there is no other means to exchange it.   Are you familiar with this concept?Upright BiPed
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Take two examples of features in living organisms and try to say something about them that is not the exact same phrase (like “it was evolved”) and it is not knowledge produce by a field of science that is not evolutionism. If you can’t do that, then evolutionism doesn't explain certain features of life, as it claims.Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
For G'moe to ignore, again: Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is how it works with archaeology, forensic science and SETI. And only an ignoramus on an agenda would try to make ID approach it differently, and here is G'moe.Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
G'moe:
Since I prefer to rely on evidence, first I should have evidence that a human-made spark is totally comparable to lightning.
You don't know what evidence is. And we can make much more than a spark. We can make lightning.
It is funny that you have just said this when arguments for ID include “DNA is a code” (note that “code” in “genetic code” has a different meaning than “code” alone), “living organisms are machines”, etc.
LoL! The genetic code does not have a different meaning than "code". THe word "genetic" just specifies the type pf code. And your position cannot explain that code. No evidence...Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
G'moe- it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. All we need to determine intelligent design is knowledge of cause and effect relationships. We do not need to know who the designer was- that always comes after we have determined design. The same goes for the process. Obviously you are totally ignorant of science. And seeing that you think that IC has been shown to arise without a designer, you are also ignorant of reality.
By saying “A human” I am saying much more that you saying “Something intelligent”.
That is your opinion and only an opinion.
Specially when, by intelligent you mean “capable of producing what I am observing”.
Again by saying it was intelligent eliminates entire classes of causes. But then again you seem to like being ignorant.Joe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Box: "Evolutionism by deductive inference: 1. Science accepts only natural causes. 2. Blind watchmaker evolution is the only naturalistic explanation. ——— 3. Blind watchmaker evolution is scientifically true." Are you aware that an article in this blog a few days ago stated that science "DOES NOT PROVE THINGS TRUE", that science provides "the most plausible explanation" Now, rewrite: 1. Science accepts only natural causes. 2. Evolution is the only naturalistic explanation. ——— 3. Evolution is scientifically the most plausible explanation. Doesn't seem wrong now, uh?Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Joe: "A detective investigating a death comes to the inference it was a murder. The detective goes to his boss and says- “This is a murder and I know who did it- it was a human!” Do you think the boss would be impressed?" Much more than if the detective says "I know the cause of death in this case: it's something that kills!". By saying "A human" I am saying much more that you saying "Something intelligent". Specially when, by intelligent you mean "capable of producing what I am observing". "I, and many other humans, have made lightning. By G’moe’s “logic” all lightning is man-made." Wrong, again. By your logic, it is so, because you invent explanations and consider them valid just for their supposed logical adequacy. Since I prefer to rely on evidence, first I should have evidence that a human-made spark is totally comparable to lightning. It is funny that you have just said this when arguments for ID include "DNA is a code" (note that "code" in "genetic code" has a different meaning than "code" alone), "living organisms are machines", etc. One argument against this is "that we do it, doesn't mean it always have to be obtained as we do it". And now you are saying I might be wrong for not taking that into account? Ironic, uh?Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Joe: "How it came to be is separate from whether or not it was intelligently designed." No, it's not. In fact, to determine something is designed you need one of three things: 1) knowledge of designed and not-designed objects to compare them (in the case of life, we should have designed and undesigned life, and we don't) 2) knowledge of the process of design 3) knowledge of the designer Since 1 is impossible to obtain, that leaves you with 2 and 3 or simply ignoring the chance that you are incurring in a phallacy, as explained by MF in 21 and me in 50. "ID is NOT about the how." Then it doesn't explain anything. Take two examples of features in living organisms and try to say something about them that is not the exact same phrase (like "it was designed") and it is not knowledge produce by a field of science that is not ID. If you can't do that, then ID doesn't explain certain features of life, as it claims.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Vishnu "When you look at a DNA/Ribosome replicator you’re looking at coded information “right in the face.”" And what's the explanation ID gives for DNA/ribosome replicators? Saying that a DNA/ribosome replicator is code information is describing it (something that is obtained from genetics and molecular biology), not explaining it. You didn't provide an explanation for DNA/ribosome replicators and all you say about them is knowledge that DOES NOT come from the field of ID. Why don't you try again?Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
HeKS "G’moe, you may not like that Barry drew attention to your faulty reasoning in the OP" What I don't like is faulty reasoning to claim someone else's reasoning is faulty. Since the point here is abductive reasoning, let's try it a little bit. Fact: I see a white horse. Question: Why is the horse white? Possible answer: because horses are always white. Analysis: 1) If horses are always white, an animal that's not white can't be a horse. 2) If an animal that's not white can't be a horse, to be horse an animal has to be white. 3) If to be a horse an animal has to be white, horses are always white. Anyone see the fault? How do we correct this? Replace "horses" with "complex life" and "white" with "designed" and guess what we'll get.Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
groovamos: "If you are a materialist.." I am not a materialist. I am a reading-comprehensionist. ID claims it can explain "certain features of the universe and life". I just want to konw the explanation. "So I assume that since you (apparently) argue against design that is intelligent, you are for design that is stupid" No, I don't. You see what you do? Instead of answering the question, you put words in my mouth and then explain why the words YOU put in my mouth are wrong. The questions remain unanswered: What is an intelligent cause exactly? How did an intelligent cause produce life on Earth?Guillermoe
October 6, 2014
October
10
Oct
6
06
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
#47 Vishnu
You argue like a squirrelly little girl. .... In my estimation, given your reasoning powers, it’s as good as you deserve. .... You’ve already demonstrated yourself to be a mediocre intellgence at best.
I have been subjected to a number of insults over the years while commenting on UD but this is one of the more extreme cases. I am wonder if Barry might comment?Mark Frank
October 5, 2014
October
10
Oct
5
05
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: #34 Vishnu
It amuses me that the ID community disparage Wikipedia
I've never done that.
... so much when it refers to ID and then quote from it extensively when its suits them.
You argue like a squirrelly little girl.
Actually I think Wikipedia is pretty good
Then what are you complaining to me about?
... but it is an encyclopedia not an in-depth analysis.
In my estimation, given your reasoning powers, it's as good as you deserve.
If you look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article you will find a much more rigorous discussion of the different definitions of abduction and their weaknesses.
Nevertheless, the essence remains the same: without "guessing" or pragmatic analysis, no scientific hypothesis would ever get off the ground. It couldn't. For obvious reasons: human inquiry transcends the scientific method, and all hypothesis generation depends on abduction reasoning. Duh.
However, I don’t want to make a big deal of the looseness of the definition.
You've already demonstrated yourself to be a mediocre intellgence at best. I've lost interest.Vishnu
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Box @13 says:
Evolutionism by deductive inference: 1. Science accepts only natural causes. 2. Blind watchmaker evolution is the only naturalistic explanation. ——— 3. Blind watchmaker evolution is scientifically true.
Box, you hit it right on!! It really doesn't matter what the evidence points to, how incredible the design is, or whether it even defies common sense. There is no way to change these guys' minds because they have redefined science to exclude God. Newton believed it was altogether reasonable to invoke the Creator as an explanation for the solar system. But nowadays, he would not qualify for any teaching job in any secular university. It's simply a worldview issue. If it weren't for their worldview or philosophy of science, not one of them, in their right mind, would ever dream of saying that interdependent codes, software, and machines do NOT point to intelligence! Not one of them! BUT, since they only grant the existence of natural processes, that is the only answer their worldview affords them. No matter how irrational it may look to us, they feel justified in their faith in these natural processes because they think there is no God. Logic then tells them it has to all come from dumb blind random purposeless natural processes. Their worldview is up to whatever evidence we throw against them. Because, in their minds, there is only one possible cause for anything and everything we see. And, the fact that they cannot explain how natural processes could have created it all does not bother them because they have strong faith that in the future, "science" will vindicate them and they will figure it all out. Their worldview enables Guillermo to attribute design to natural processes that have NOT been demonstrated to do what they claim they do. The same worldview also enables Mark F. to question the clear logic of abductive reasoning which he admittedly uses every day and even evolutionists use liberally when they try and interpret the past. So when he questions it, he cuts off the branch he is sitting on. He wants us to believe that evolutionists can use it, but IDers/creationists can not. It enables these guys to claim to use reason even though their worldview cannot account for the existence of reason itself. Box is right! No evidence can persuade them because they will just say "Well whadya know. Who woulda thunk evolution could do something like this? But here it is so now we know." The paradigm is untouchable.tjguy
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Mark @ 42. Well, thanks for trying :) I appreciate your comment. I'm no expert or authority on Bayesian analysis. I'm a simple guy, like Bill O, but not as rich. But there are some things I do know. Take this article on Wikipedia:
Informally, two kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
So when someone comes along and claims to have a found a form of logical reasoning that falls outside these three, it arouses my curiosity. Even more so when I am told that this other way of logical reasoning provides the justification for some of these ways of logical reasoning. Mung:
To borrow a question from Barry, is Bayesian analysis 1. Deductive; 2. Inductive; 3. Abductive; 4. Other?
4. Other would seem to be equivalent to illogical reasoning. Mark Frank:
Other – it is the justification of all stochastic inference – so it can be applied to both inductive and abductive inference.
When you say "Other," you don't mean that it falls outside the remit of logical reasoning do you? Let me lay out my thinking as precisely as I can. Bayesian analysis/inference is a form of logical reasoning. The forms of logical reasoning are deduction, induction and abduction. Therefore, Bayesian analysis/inference is either deductive, inductive, or abductive. That's how my mind works. Simple. Logical. What's wrong with my argument, and how can you say "other" and still keep a straight face? c.f.: http://www.fibonicci.com/logical-reasoning/Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Gawd, the imbiclesVishnu
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
@Mark Frank #36
It amuses me that the ID community disparage Wikipedia so much when it refers to ID and then quote from it extensively when its suits them.
I'm not sure why it amuses you. It's not like there's anything hypocritical in it. The fact that Wikipedia articles on politically and ideologically charged topics tend to be inundated with ideologues doesn't mean it can't be reasonably accurate on less controversial issues.
However, I don’t want to make a big deal of the looseness of the definition. I fully accept that it describes a related modes of inference that are widely used in science and elsewhere, are often the only practical approach, and frequently lead to correct inferences. The important point is abduction is not necessarily valid
But surely you recognize that ID readily acknowledges this, right? For example, in the comment thread that this OP was taken from, in my discussion with Guillermoe, I made the following statements:
ID is conservative in making a design inference. It makes a design inference when it finds the observable hallmarks of intelligent agency and where no naturalistic mechanisms are known to be capable of producing the effect in question. Furthermore, the design inference is always made tentatively, so that it is based on the best scientific knowledge we have in the present but is subject to revision if naturalistic mechanisms are found in the future.
Abductive arguments are always held tentatively because they cannot be as certain as deductive arguments, but they are a perfectly valid form of argumentation and their conclusions are legitimate as long as the premises remain true, because they are a statement about the current state of our knowledge and the evidence rather than deductive statements about reality.
a design inference, ... being the result of an abductive argument, is always held tentatively
HeKS
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
#41 Mung This is a hell of a question to answer in a single comment. Can I assume you know what Bayesian inference is? The key point about it is that assesses the probability of the explanation given the observation - which is what you really want to know. Abductive inference is a vaguer term but in many instances it simply does not attempt to assess the probability of the explanation. It does straight from "this is the best explanation" to "therefore we have good reason to believe it is the explanation" without the intermediate step of assessing the probability. By comparing specific instances of abductive inference to Bayesian inference it is possible to identify to what extent it does answer the key question "how probably is the explanation?" and therefore to what extent it is justified. I am less certain about the relationship between Bayesian inference and induction (but that was not the main point of the OP). Eliot Sober, for example, has argues that Bayesian inference provides a basis for inductive inferences and I am somewhat convinced.Mark Frank
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Mark, I didn't ask about it's applications I asked about it's basis. Upon what basis is Bayesian analysis the justification of all stochastic inference? In what way is Bayesian analysis neither dedective, inductive, nor abductive? More importantly, how is it so in such a manner as to establish it as the justification of all stochastic inference?Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
#39 Mung Other - it is the justification of all stochastic inference - so it can be applied to both inductive and abductive inference.Mark Frank
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I am not saying abductive reasoning is always invalid. I am just saying it is loosely defined and not necessarily valid. The way to find out if a specific example is valid is to break it down in an a Bayesian fashion.
To borrow a question from Barry, is Bayesian analysis 1. Deductive; 2. Inductive; 3. Abductive; 4. Other?Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Guillermoe:
What is an intelligent cause exactly?
LOL! Good one!Mung
October 4, 2014
October
10
Oct
4
04
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3