![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The standard spelling seems to be premise. If Peirce's preferred spelling is otherwise, this can be noted once the reader knows what we are talking about. The introduction should not use premiss without explanation. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Folks, let's please discuss things one at a time and in short sentences. Tetrast seems to confirm my impression that premiss was Peirce's preferred spelling, while premise is the standard american spelling which also appeared in some of Peirce's texts. I still don't think we should use "premiss" without some additional explanation. How about using "premise" followed by a parenthetical remark "(or premiss, Peirce's preferred spelling)"? Once this is resolved, we can go on to other aspects of abduction, surprising or otherwise. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the term "guessing" has appeared. Has Peirce ever used "guesswork"? Tkuvho ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Magnani is one of the most prolific authors on abduction, and should probably be quoted here. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone contribute a discussion of Judea Pearl's work on abduction, for example from his book Causality Mrdavenport ( talk) 07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I object to the sentence, "Oftenest even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong," because: A) It makes no sense to me and, B) It doesn't seem to be grammatically correct. Assuming that the meaning is, "Even a well-prepared mind often guesses wrong" I propose that the sentence be amended. I also note that the word "oftenest" doesn't appear on the page that is used as a reference for that statement. 190.235.228.1 ( talk) 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"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."
This is a terrible example of deductive reasoning. Because the exact definition of bachelor is "an unmarried male", nothing at all is deduced, facts are only restated. The conclusion is just a restatement of the 2nd part of the premise, adding nothing new at all, so it's lacking the characteristic inference.
Something abstract might be better? Or a joke: If all politicians are liars, and Ted is a politician, then Ted is a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmneeley ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abductive reasoning/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Rated as stub== Dictionary-short article needs references/citations (previously tagged). Hotfeba 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
How is the term mathematically different from ? Using current notation and argumentation they are equivalent, and the artificial expansion of the marginals does not convey clarity or usefulness of any kind. The difference (if any) between and could also be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.53.84 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, in the sentence 'where "||" denotes conditional deduction', this is not understandable: in the right-hand side of the immediately preceding equation, substituting the conditional probabilities by their standard definitions, the multipliers and cancel off, and by complementarity of and , the expression boils down to , leaving one with no clue of what actually is. Also, just next, the "base rate" is mentioned but not defined nor provided with a link to some other Wikipedia page explaining what it is (this is also, essentially, the same question as above asking the editor to clarify the difference between and ). Thanks for your attention. 83.63.244.118 ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I read and re-read this article and still do not get the distinction between "induction" and "abduction". Though the authors presented a very learned discussion with careful symbolic logic to support their definition of "abduction", they made nary a mention of "induction", which it seems to me they were defining. 3,568 is my answer to the angel question, by the way, but only on Sunday and other certain assumptions (assumptions of certainty) for uncertain things, i.e. definitions that constrain alternative interpretations. There may be a deep and meaningful distinction to be had between abduction and induction, but in my dense fog of ignorance, I can not see it. From that fog comes another popular saying "mountains out of molehills" to which I would add the corollary, molehills out of mountains (cp. Matthew 23:24, though I am not a Christian except by culture). The issue is how, from specific instances, we are able to draw and validate general statements, hypotheses, theories, or, as the authors cite other authors, "guesses". Patterns, of course, and observations of patterns, repeatable (helpful), recorded (helpful), and discussed with others (also helpful). The help, which we and I often first react to as an attack, attempts to uncover our inevitable social, political, religious, logical, and mathematical biases. (cp. Lao Tzu for a poetic advance of the "bias" hypothesis, to give ecumenicalism its due) "We", and I as but a lay person, have known this for a long time and heretofore called it, by convention, "induction". Science proceeds by making distinctions where none existed before, and I applaud the authors for their copious contribution, though I must learn more before understanding it. Ssinnock ( talk) 21:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's my amateur's crack at induction vs. abduction. Induction involves constructing a rule that a implies b from numerous examples. (Actually, there is a rigorous mathematical method of proof called induction.) Abduction is an inverse application of the rule a implies b: one infers that given b, a was the probable cause. Induction is as good as the data that supports the rule. Abduction is only as good as the uniqueness of the cause, a. For example, there could be two rules constructed from induction: a causes c, and b causes c. Both these inductive rules could be correct, and either could be applied inductively to show that if a or b occurs, then c occurs. Observing c, the abduction that a was the cause, is only probabalistic, since the cause might have been b. Wcmead3 ( talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I see it, there is a representation which allows to clarify everything. Basically, there is theories and observations, for instance we can observe that something is at a given position, or acting in some ways, but we cannot observe a theory, like the laws of nature, which we can only build based on evidences we have. Nevertheless, both are related, such that the theory is built to represent the observations, so if an observation is followed by an observation , we can establish a theory (or rule) which supports it. More formally, the theory is established to tell that ( physically leads to ), what we can rewrite as ( logically represents the observations). Knowing that is equivalent to , it can be rewritten as , which gives us a form where we can identify the premises ( and ) and the consequences (). The point here is the following:
Consequently, deduction is assumed to be certain, which is true as long as the theory is correct. Abduction is physically uncertain, because even if the theory is correct, other theories could be used, leading to identify another . Induction is logically uncertain because additional information may provide us counter evidences, making the theory incorrect and leading us to induce something else. Once we have well understood that, it seems clear that the difficulty to differentiate abduction from induction comes from the fact that both of them are given the conclusion () and part of the premises ( or ) and aim at retrieving the missing premises (resp. or ) with some uncertainty (resp. logical or physical). Unless we differentiate premises as observation and theory/concrete and abstract/empirical and theoretical/..., we cannot tell the difference between the two. Matthieu Vergne ( talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I merged the duplicate history sections and moved it into one section at the top. Most information in the first history section was already in the second, so only a little bit of information needed to be added. Here was the article before the merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abductive_reasoning&oldid=750726565 IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 22:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I get this with 3 different Browsers and both on Win7 and Win10:
"Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "/mathoid/local/v1/":): a_{1}"
See:
http://beginnersmind.de/pics/scrshots/Possible-Mediawiki-Bug.png
BeginnersMind (
talk)
08:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I could fix it by changing blank space. Perhaps the cache refreshing did fix the problem. BeginnersMind ( talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abductive reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3654/is_200406/ai_n9453295When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abductive reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://inscribe.iupress.org/doi/abs/10.2979/TRA.2008.44.3.446{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abduktionsforschung.de/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The readability of this article is rather abstruse from a naive lay person's perspective, and therefore obtuse to them. This has been a major problem since Wikipedia got in the experts to edit things. If the explanation is above the level of New Scientist magazine, it is too complex. Articles need to be written so the lay person without defect of intelligence, may gain understanding of all which is said in simple terms, not written as something a trained person would understand, such as an university undergrad. This is the problem with educated writing, to assume what is simple and previously understood by the writer is simple to understand for the reader (who has none of these advantages). This would ultimately require; overview, simple summary, detailed and advanced understanding sections to draw the avid reader up in understanding as they read and worked through each.
Examples:
More specifically. It would he better to apply abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning to the same common examples, to illustrate the different ways of viewing each mechanism. It would be good to have these three perspectives of each example and at least three examples. Such examples would have to be formed to contrast the different perspectives to promote understanding the differences between the types of reasoning.
Language:
The language needs to be less technical and more explanatory. A linked technical word put in brackets after the explanation could be used. for example "(called X)" for people to explore.
Discriminatory:
I say the above because there is a large variability of cognitive ability in the community, but also, people like myself suffering medical cognitive decline, are progressively majorally disadvantaged in researching subjects by the present way of writing and separating out articles. For example, like health/medical pages separating out condition from pathogen pages while eliminating advanced (preliminary and alternative) research information one might pursue to get away from the confirmation biases on the page, and find deviations related to genetic physiology differences, in these examples, and new directions of understanding. These had dried up to be replaced by formalised views which were unproven as far as being the limit of understand. A form of confirmation biase.
I would appreciate if somebody could bring this here to the wider attention of the Wikipedia community standards. I have only done a talk/issues submission once or twice before in post format and this new talk system is very abstruse in itself. The system is a maze. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.32.248 ( talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor removed the section "Probabilistic abduction" with this edit. I am not restoring it only because it is an WP:UNSOURCED section. I do not have the time now and probably never will to properly source this section, but a quick google search shows that probabilistic abduction is a thing. If someone else wishes to restore this, keep in mind it must be sourced or the next time someone does not like it they can remove it and it will go unchallenged. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed ( talk) 23:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Peirce's idea of "abduction" has been likened to Max Weber's idea of "imputation (Zurechnung)", applied in historical and sociological explanation:
Errantius ( talk) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
One way to make this page more approachable would be to use a consistent example in section 1 instead of bouncing around between wikis, swans, and billiards -- MW does this nicely. Let's settle on swans.
deduction
induction
abduction
Thanks! - Reagle ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor recently moved a number of quotations into explanatory notes, and I reverted those edits because it is not the proper use of explanatory notes. As I said in my edit summaries, for example, Campos 2011 and Walton 2001 are just references that support the claim, not explanatory notes. And putting other quotations in explanatory footnotes with no indication (via quotation marks or block quotations) that they are quotations is also unacceptable because it is essentially plagiarism of the sources, since the lack of indication of quotation confuses Wikipedia's voice with the voices of the quoted authors. Help:Explanatory notes shows the proper usage of explanatory notes. Unfortunately there were other unrelated changes in the reverted edits, but it is extremely tedious work to individually undo all of the improper explanatory notes, and anyone who makes such a large quantity of changes should take care to do it correctly. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Peirce seems to have proposed the mode of abductive reasoning for practical reasons related to "economy of research". Not all hypotheses are equally worthy of being subjected to the costly effort of falsification -- empirically, or otherwise.
A key term proposed by him to explain this basis is "uberty" -- the expected fertility and pragmatic value of a hypothesis. This concept has been taken up by a few scholars and seems to be gaining support via connections to the Free Energy Principle.
Some preliminary content around uberty can be found here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Uberty
I would be happy to contribute a small subsection and link to this page, based on your feedback.
-- Bearf0x42 ( talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to be ready for a comeback with the Free Energy Principle. Here's a quote from a September 2021 paper by a leading researcher in Semiotics: ... The choice is between those that carry what Peirce terms the ‘uberty’ of hypotheses and those that do not. In brief, FEP’s account of prediction error minimisation, thick depth of its generative models, and policymaking have vindicated Peirce’s logic of scientific inquiry sketched over a century ago. REF: Beni, Majid D.; Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (2021-09-10). "Aligning the free-energy principle with Peirce's logic of science and economy of research". European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 11 (3): 94. https://doi.org/h10.1007/s13194-021-00408-y
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, is one of the leading Semiotics researchers around. He and his coauthor clearly describe the connections between the best unifying brain theory (Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle) and Pierce's notions of uberty: The desirable property to be found in a method of hypothesis generation.
And here's another title of a paper a legal research journal from 1993: On Uberty: Legal Reasoning by Analogy and Peirce's Theory of Abduction, Willamette Law Review, Vol. 29, p. 191, 1993
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The standard spelling seems to be premise. If Peirce's preferred spelling is otherwise, this can be noted once the reader knows what we are talking about. The introduction should not use premiss without explanation. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Folks, let's please discuss things one at a time and in short sentences. Tetrast seems to confirm my impression that premiss was Peirce's preferred spelling, while premise is the standard american spelling which also appeared in some of Peirce's texts. I still don't think we should use "premiss" without some additional explanation. How about using "premise" followed by a parenthetical remark "(or premiss, Peirce's preferred spelling)"? Once this is resolved, we can go on to other aspects of abduction, surprising or otherwise. Tkuvho ( talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the term "guessing" has appeared. Has Peirce ever used "guesswork"? Tkuvho ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Magnani is one of the most prolific authors on abduction, and should probably be quoted here. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone contribute a discussion of Judea Pearl's work on abduction, for example from his book Causality Mrdavenport ( talk) 07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I object to the sentence, "Oftenest even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong," because: A) It makes no sense to me and, B) It doesn't seem to be grammatically correct. Assuming that the meaning is, "Even a well-prepared mind often guesses wrong" I propose that the sentence be amended. I also note that the word "oftenest" doesn't appear on the page that is used as a reference for that statement. 190.235.228.1 ( talk) 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"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."
This is a terrible example of deductive reasoning. Because the exact definition of bachelor is "an unmarried male", nothing at all is deduced, facts are only restated. The conclusion is just a restatement of the 2nd part of the premise, adding nothing new at all, so it's lacking the characteristic inference.
Something abstract might be better? Or a joke: If all politicians are liars, and Ted is a politician, then Ted is a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmneeley ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abductive reasoning/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Rated as stub== Dictionary-short article needs references/citations (previously tagged). Hotfeba 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
How is the term mathematically different from ? Using current notation and argumentation they are equivalent, and the artificial expansion of the marginals does not convey clarity or usefulness of any kind. The difference (if any) between and could also be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.53.84 ( talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, in the sentence 'where "||" denotes conditional deduction', this is not understandable: in the right-hand side of the immediately preceding equation, substituting the conditional probabilities by their standard definitions, the multipliers and cancel off, and by complementarity of and , the expression boils down to , leaving one with no clue of what actually is. Also, just next, the "base rate" is mentioned but not defined nor provided with a link to some other Wikipedia page explaining what it is (this is also, essentially, the same question as above asking the editor to clarify the difference between and ). Thanks for your attention. 83.63.244.118 ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I read and re-read this article and still do not get the distinction between "induction" and "abduction". Though the authors presented a very learned discussion with careful symbolic logic to support their definition of "abduction", they made nary a mention of "induction", which it seems to me they were defining. 3,568 is my answer to the angel question, by the way, but only on Sunday and other certain assumptions (assumptions of certainty) for uncertain things, i.e. definitions that constrain alternative interpretations. There may be a deep and meaningful distinction to be had between abduction and induction, but in my dense fog of ignorance, I can not see it. From that fog comes another popular saying "mountains out of molehills" to which I would add the corollary, molehills out of mountains (cp. Matthew 23:24, though I am not a Christian except by culture). The issue is how, from specific instances, we are able to draw and validate general statements, hypotheses, theories, or, as the authors cite other authors, "guesses". Patterns, of course, and observations of patterns, repeatable (helpful), recorded (helpful), and discussed with others (also helpful). The help, which we and I often first react to as an attack, attempts to uncover our inevitable social, political, religious, logical, and mathematical biases. (cp. Lao Tzu for a poetic advance of the "bias" hypothesis, to give ecumenicalism its due) "We", and I as but a lay person, have known this for a long time and heretofore called it, by convention, "induction". Science proceeds by making distinctions where none existed before, and I applaud the authors for their copious contribution, though I must learn more before understanding it. Ssinnock ( talk) 21:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's my amateur's crack at induction vs. abduction. Induction involves constructing a rule that a implies b from numerous examples. (Actually, there is a rigorous mathematical method of proof called induction.) Abduction is an inverse application of the rule a implies b: one infers that given b, a was the probable cause. Induction is as good as the data that supports the rule. Abduction is only as good as the uniqueness of the cause, a. For example, there could be two rules constructed from induction: a causes c, and b causes c. Both these inductive rules could be correct, and either could be applied inductively to show that if a or b occurs, then c occurs. Observing c, the abduction that a was the cause, is only probabalistic, since the cause might have been b. Wcmead3 ( talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I see it, there is a representation which allows to clarify everything. Basically, there is theories and observations, for instance we can observe that something is at a given position, or acting in some ways, but we cannot observe a theory, like the laws of nature, which we can only build based on evidences we have. Nevertheless, both are related, such that the theory is built to represent the observations, so if an observation is followed by an observation , we can establish a theory (or rule) which supports it. More formally, the theory is established to tell that ( physically leads to ), what we can rewrite as ( logically represents the observations). Knowing that is equivalent to , it can be rewritten as , which gives us a form where we can identify the premises ( and ) and the consequences (). The point here is the following:
Consequently, deduction is assumed to be certain, which is true as long as the theory is correct. Abduction is physically uncertain, because even if the theory is correct, other theories could be used, leading to identify another . Induction is logically uncertain because additional information may provide us counter evidences, making the theory incorrect and leading us to induce something else. Once we have well understood that, it seems clear that the difficulty to differentiate abduction from induction comes from the fact that both of them are given the conclusion () and part of the premises ( or ) and aim at retrieving the missing premises (resp. or ) with some uncertainty (resp. logical or physical). Unless we differentiate premises as observation and theory/concrete and abstract/empirical and theoretical/..., we cannot tell the difference between the two. Matthieu Vergne ( talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I merged the duplicate history sections and moved it into one section at the top. Most information in the first history section was already in the second, so only a little bit of information needed to be added. Here was the article before the merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abductive_reasoning&oldid=750726565 IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 22:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I get this with 3 different Browsers and both on Win7 and Win10:
"Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "/mathoid/local/v1/":): a_{1}"
See:
http://beginnersmind.de/pics/scrshots/Possible-Mediawiki-Bug.png
BeginnersMind (
talk)
08:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I could fix it by changing blank space. Perhaps the cache refreshing did fix the problem. BeginnersMind ( talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abductive reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3654/is_200406/ai_n9453295When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abductive reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://inscribe.iupress.org/doi/abs/10.2979/TRA.2008.44.3.446{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abduktionsforschung.de/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The readability of this article is rather abstruse from a naive lay person's perspective, and therefore obtuse to them. This has been a major problem since Wikipedia got in the experts to edit things. If the explanation is above the level of New Scientist magazine, it is too complex. Articles need to be written so the lay person without defect of intelligence, may gain understanding of all which is said in simple terms, not written as something a trained person would understand, such as an university undergrad. This is the problem with educated writing, to assume what is simple and previously understood by the writer is simple to understand for the reader (who has none of these advantages). This would ultimately require; overview, simple summary, detailed and advanced understanding sections to draw the avid reader up in understanding as they read and worked through each.
Examples:
More specifically. It would he better to apply abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning to the same common examples, to illustrate the different ways of viewing each mechanism. It would be good to have these three perspectives of each example and at least three examples. Such examples would have to be formed to contrast the different perspectives to promote understanding the differences between the types of reasoning.
Language:
The language needs to be less technical and more explanatory. A linked technical word put in brackets after the explanation could be used. for example "(called X)" for people to explore.
Discriminatory:
I say the above because there is a large variability of cognitive ability in the community, but also, people like myself suffering medical cognitive decline, are progressively majorally disadvantaged in researching subjects by the present way of writing and separating out articles. For example, like health/medical pages separating out condition from pathogen pages while eliminating advanced (preliminary and alternative) research information one might pursue to get away from the confirmation biases on the page, and find deviations related to genetic physiology differences, in these examples, and new directions of understanding. These had dried up to be replaced by formalised views which were unproven as far as being the limit of understand. A form of confirmation biase.
I would appreciate if somebody could bring this here to the wider attention of the Wikipedia community standards. I have only done a talk/issues submission once or twice before in post format and this new talk system is very abstruse in itself. The system is a maze. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.32.248 ( talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor removed the section "Probabilistic abduction" with this edit. I am not restoring it only because it is an WP:UNSOURCED section. I do not have the time now and probably never will to properly source this section, but a quick google search shows that probabilistic abduction is a thing. If someone else wishes to restore this, keep in mind it must be sourced or the next time someone does not like it they can remove it and it will go unchallenged. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed ( talk) 23:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Peirce's idea of "abduction" has been likened to Max Weber's idea of "imputation (Zurechnung)", applied in historical and sociological explanation:
Errantius ( talk) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
One way to make this page more approachable would be to use a consistent example in section 1 instead of bouncing around between wikis, swans, and billiards -- MW does this nicely. Let's settle on swans.
deduction
induction
abduction
Thanks! - Reagle ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor recently moved a number of quotations into explanatory notes, and I reverted those edits because it is not the proper use of explanatory notes. As I said in my edit summaries, for example, Campos 2011 and Walton 2001 are just references that support the claim, not explanatory notes. And putting other quotations in explanatory footnotes with no indication (via quotation marks or block quotations) that they are quotations is also unacceptable because it is essentially plagiarism of the sources, since the lack of indication of quotation confuses Wikipedia's voice with the voices of the quoted authors. Help:Explanatory notes shows the proper usage of explanatory notes. Unfortunately there were other unrelated changes in the reverted edits, but it is extremely tedious work to individually undo all of the improper explanatory notes, and anyone who makes such a large quantity of changes should take care to do it correctly. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Peirce seems to have proposed the mode of abductive reasoning for practical reasons related to "economy of research". Not all hypotheses are equally worthy of being subjected to the costly effort of falsification -- empirically, or otherwise.
A key term proposed by him to explain this basis is "uberty" -- the expected fertility and pragmatic value of a hypothesis. This concept has been taken up by a few scholars and seems to be gaining support via connections to the Free Energy Principle.
Some preliminary content around uberty can be found here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Uberty
I would be happy to contribute a small subsection and link to this page, based on your feedback.
-- Bearf0x42 ( talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to be ready for a comeback with the Free Energy Principle. Here's a quote from a September 2021 paper by a leading researcher in Semiotics: ... The choice is between those that carry what Peirce terms the ‘uberty’ of hypotheses and those that do not. In brief, FEP’s account of prediction error minimisation, thick depth of its generative models, and policymaking have vindicated Peirce’s logic of scientific inquiry sketched over a century ago. REF: Beni, Majid D.; Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (2021-09-10). "Aligning the free-energy principle with Peirce's logic of science and economy of research". European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 11 (3): 94. https://doi.org/h10.1007/s13194-021-00408-y
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, is one of the leading Semiotics researchers around. He and his coauthor clearly describe the connections between the best unifying brain theory (Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle) and Pierce's notions of uberty: The desirable property to be found in a method of hypothesis generation.
And here's another title of a paper a legal research journal from 1993: On Uberty: Legal Reasoning by Analogy and Peirce's Theory of Abduction, Willamette Law Review, Vol. 29, p. 191, 1993