CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Abductive Arguments
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois University) follows up on his introduction to critical thinking by exploring how abductive arguments give us reason to believe their conclusions. Good abductive arguments don't guarantee their conclusions, but give us very good reasons to believe their conclusions. This sort of inference is called "inference to the best explanation."
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/GeW7/
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Soundness [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3P0fUHUaZcs/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Soundness [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cum3k-Wglfw/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Validity [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kdJ6aGToDlo/mqdefault.jpg)
I know an example of an abductive argument; the duck test.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Occam's razor also is
Thank you! People always talk about deductive and inductive reasoning but they easily forget abductive reasoning!
That is because abductive is only a combination of the two main methods and adds nothing of substance. 'What makes a good explanation?' is only how to make a better induction.
Thank you for making these awesome videos, they are very helpful!! I am enjoying to watch and learn!!
"KUWA"
Knowledge: Know the pertinent facts.
Understanding: Understand those facts.
Wisdom: Correctly connect those facts together.
Application: Apply wisdom.
Missing even one pertinent fact, and/or not correctly understanding even one pertinent fact, and/or not correctly connecting two or more pertinent facts together, and wrong conclusions could easily be obtained. Sometimes even dangerous and deadly actions taken from those conclusions.
There is a KUWA for every topic in existence in this universe, even a KUWA of KUWA.
KUWA needs to be wide in pertinent topics and deep enough in those pertinent topics to reach correct conclusions that could then have correct wisdom applied.
I wish I read this before!
@@alexjoonto Since that post was 6 years ago as of this post, I'll post an updated version after this post. Note though, I just tried to post this on another video for another channel just today and while it posted, it was apparently blocked by YT for some reason. Of which, on my YT page, 'About' section, one of my email addresses 'if' this does not post and you want it. Anyway, look for another post after this one.
@@alexjoonto I have taken my mind from eternity past to future eternity and to a realm I call 'The Realm Of All Concepts' whereby nothing at all exists, not even space, time, logic nor reason, and yet everything that could ever be exists. It was quite a mind trip, and no illegal drugs utilized either.
Consider also: AKUW, KUWA, AND KUWPRA:
KUWA (coo-wah):
Knowledge: Know the pertinent facts.
Understanding: Understand those pertinent facts.
Wisdom: Correctly connect those pertinent facts together.
Application: Apply wisdom.
* And there is a KUWA for every topic in existence, even a KUWA of KUWA.
KUWPRA (coo-prah):
Same as KUWA, plus:
Power: Power necessary to do things.
Resources: Resources necessary to do things, (including currency at times in an economically driven existence).
AKUW (a-coo):
Most of the time, we Apply before having all the pertinent 'KUW'. Dangerous and even deadly consequences can occur, and often do. Hopefully we survive so as to pass KUWA onto others so that they do not make the same mistakes we made.
@@alexjoonto Okay, it appears to have posted here for this video. Don't know why it didn't post on the other one. Anyway, enjoy.
@@alexjoonto Here is another item I recently came up with that you might enjoy:
Cognitive Dissonance: Expectations versus reality:
How life is perceived to be versus how one wishes perceived life to be.
A force behind our emotions as well as a force behind our agendas.
I would even go so far as saying 'cognitive dissonance' is a force of nature for conscious entities in this apparent existence we find ourselves in. It appears to explain so much.
Excellent! Thanks for a clear and very helpful video.
The more I learn about academic philosophy, the more I realize it is a
collection of thoughts I've already had, albeit accompanied by jargon
terminology.
The Ancient and Medieval Philosophy are full of terms that no one was sure of what the author really means. Twentieth Century However was quite interesting because it was in parallel with modern science and technology.
@Universalis Ted What the hell are you talking about. Every Analytic tradition schools, e.g. UK, and the Americas take logic.
Great job explaining that. I used the phrases abductive discovery and abductive preference to indicate which is the best explanation that answers my research question.
The example with Uranus and Neptune is ironic because a similar thing happened with the aberration in the orbit of Mercury and the planet Vulcan was postulated to explain it... turns out that in this case Newton's theory was wrong.
It is not ironic, it is how science works. Abductive arguments let you postulate a hypothesis, but they do not guarantee the conclusion is true. The hypothesis that Neptune existed was not accepted as true only because Newton's theory had to be true, it was only accepted as true when Neptune was finally observed. Similarly, the abductive conclusion that Vulcan had to exist was never confirmed with observations, and then later, in 1915, a better explanation for Mercury's perihelion was found (relativity) and therefore the premise of Newton's hypothesis had to be dropped in favor of a better explanation. So, an abductive argument is a very good tool for you to formulate new hypothesis, but they do not let you find whether your hypothesis is true or not, only experiments and observed data let your corroborate or falsify a hypothesis.
Even Newton knew it was wrong as it did not add have indication of the effect of the factor of time.
So, is abduction a place holder until assumptions are firmed up through deductive processes?
Is it just a broken or incomplete deductive process?
Thx! Very good explanation! Good work!
what is the difference between abductive and inductive?
is this abductive? premise: keanu reeves looks young even if its 2015 conclusion: keanu reeves is a vampire
Only if being a vampire is the best explanation for his youthful looks
oooh! so, abductive reasoning focuses on the best explanation possible? so my conclusion is wrong since there may be other best explanations for his youthful looks? right?
Correct, if you find a better way to explain your conclusion, then your original premise loses weight, as in the example of the nemesis.
thanks yall ma niggies
Keanu Reeves still looks young even if it's 2020. Therefore, Keanu Reeves IS a vampire.
Checking my understanding here, but for the first example, wouldn't abductive reasoning take in multiple factors?
I think abductive reasoning is closely related to occam's razor. A strong abductive argument seems to be the one that requires less unsupported premises. What you think, does my view hold any water? I can explain in more detail if you want
That's actually exactly what it is. I'm surprised Geoff didn't mention it.
Is an argument by analogy inductive or abductive? I feel the distinction between inductive and abductive is a bit unnatural, but I'm open to changing my view.
it seems to me that ampliative arguments are pre-fact arguments and abductive arguments are post-fact arguments.a) ampliative: I do not think Mark is coming to the party because he is shyb) abdutive: mark did not come to the party because he is shy
From Butte College: "While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can."
What is the difference between abductive arguments and ampliative arguments?
so are abductive arguments a subset of ampliative arguments, or vice versa?
Yes, abductive arguments a subset of ampliative arguments.
Abduction needs a catchphrase .. like "invalid" or "cogent" .. I don't what to have to say "That explanation is not the best fit for the available evidence." What a mouthful. :P
When some1 claims they were abducted but you say they dreamed it, is that an abductive argument?
You are crazy 🤣🤣
Is it safe to say that a confession from a suspect in a criminal matter warrants an explanation?What if evidence is difficult to obtain?Who or what circumstances decides what a conclusion definately is?
Thank you
What is the difference between an ampliative argument and an abductive argument?
@@darbyl3872 Thanks for the information. I appreciate it😊
so how do I solve a clinical case if a condition needs to be detected are variable stages stage one something is wrong and only tests detect a little anomaly no S/S stage 2 symptoms maybe signs stage 3 similar to 2 beyond this I cant organize it some diseases stop there some present with complications that can be called symptoms but are not the first thing that should have been detected maybe because they could not be
another stage that maybe not part of the above org, is syndromes at some point the disease complication is like chapter 1 in a book after a long intro
could someone with expertise in epistemology design a more detailed method for medical students for clinical reasoning that has tested all types of reasoning and knows when to use which
so useful
I like it, a lot
Is this an abductive argument:
Premise: An apple fell
Conclusion: an invisible force made the apple fell the way it fell
?
The Neptune example wasn't very good because it was so far away it couldn't influence Uranus's orbit, and it turns out their observations were bad. There was another planet there anyway though, by coincidence.
5:23
You have spelled "whoa" wrong....
its also woah too tho
You forgot most important one. Predictive power. Fit and simplicity are useless because you can equally valid multiple explanation with that criteria.
Example pls ?
Me being bored im like oh man i got this class in less than a month and i dont know smack 😅
And here all I thought there was was deduction and induction.
2:43 what did he sayyyyy? Lol
Why DID charlie's cheeks turn red?
Because he's a tomato
It seems like a dead end of a lane. There is nothing more and nothing less.
what is the difference between abductive and inductive?
Andre CBC Abductive arguments are based on explanatory conditions such as fit and simplicity while inductive reasoning are based on frequency.