Personality Cafe banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
...in a metaphorical way? Or in some way that uses examples, so that I might understand it in a non-mathematical way?

No Wikipedia links. I just came over here from over there.

I am also hoping that a human can contradistinguish abduction from deduction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
What was ambigous about the wiki article? I think this explains it in a nutshell:
For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that Peirce did not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)[SUP][4][/SUP] Moreover, abducing rain last night from the observation of the wet lawn can lead to a false conclusion. In this example, dew, lawn sprinklers, or some other process may have resulted in the wet lawn, even in the absence of rain.

Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy call for the 'leap' of abduction.[SUP][5][/SUP]
We make an observation and come up with a potential explanation for it. Through previous experience or logical conclusion we know, that the hypothetical explanation is sufficient to tell us why it the observed object is in this very state. Yet, we can not presume with certainty that this is the actual cause.

I can see a burning house and assert that someone put it on fire, or that an accident happened. Depending on the circumstances one of these possibilities will seem most likely.


Deduction = I have the premises, which have yet evidence and perform a logical conlusion. If the premises are indeed valid as well as the conclusion, then so is the product.

E.g.: a) houses are red, b) this is a house →the house is red

Abduction = Observation + what might have caused it. The process of abduction might ressemble deducing.

E.g.: When people are murdered they are dead. This person is dead. → He was murdered.

In contrast to the deduction, we start with the result and then try to reconstruct the cause (premises). As said above, we draw from our experience (implications we are aware of) and come up with an explanation (a cause which implies the observed state). There is however no certainty, as there are always multiple causes harboring the potential to be correct.


And if something remains unclear
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
So, is abductive reasoning is the process of extrapolating the cause(s) of a conclusion, based on what is already known about that conclusion?

So I can assume, for example, I know why a house is painted red, based on what my common sense tells me about red houses? The abduction: Someone must have painted it red.

Are there different levels of abduction? Like, say, when the number of variables increases or decreases?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

Holy hell I want this graphic masterpiece to repost and repost, until there are 7 pages of just this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ista

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
So, is abductive reasoning is the process of extrapolating the cause(s) of a conclusion, based on what is already known about that conclusion?
It does not need to be causal. It is simply a way of reasoning given a particular matter of fact or certainty without knowing the actual conditions for that matter of fact or certainty, usually in order to make an 'educated guess' about the actual conditions for the given matter of fact or certainty. The 'educated guess' is then a hypothesis of what might be the actual conditions, in absence of reliable knowledge of the actual conditions. So, yes, if you see a house with red paint on it, and know that typically red paint gets on houses due to people painting the houses, then you can abduce that the house was painted red, because that is what is typically the case, even though you do not know the actual conditions for the red paint being on the house; you only have probable or possible conditions.

Are there different levels of abduction? Like, say, when the number of variables increases or decreases?
Of course you have, but I do not think they are typically differentiated as such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
@zobot

So, is abductive reasoning is the process of extrapolating the cause(s) of a conclusion, based on what is already known about that conclusion?
In many cases. But as Protagoras said, it needn´t be causal.

If I am aware of an implication p→q and I see that q is indeed, then I can abduce that p is the original cause. When a car is new, it has no damages. However, when a car is undamaged I cannot presume that it is brand new. Perchance the owner is just cautious. For usual p is just an element of a set of potential causes.

So I can assume, for example, I know why a house is painted red, based on what my common sense tells me about red houses? The abduction: Someone must have painted it red.
There you have the key word: Common sense. Abducing is purely common sense.

Are there different levels of abduction? Like, say, when the number of variables increases or decreases?
More or less. Lets take that red house example again. Assume that you know the company that builds the house. Assume that they paint their houses exclusively with a specific color according to the prize of the house. If you know, that they build the house in a wealthy area you can make further assumptions and eventually abduce what the color of the house is. In this case you included several factors.


@qingdom

What about it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
264 Posts
Inductive:
a. All of the premises in this post have a conclusion.
b. All premises have conclusions.
From particular instance to general law.

Deductive:
a. All dogs exist.
b. My dog exists.
From general law to particular instance.

Abductive:
b. The number "5" is shown as a result on a calculator.
a. The problem "2+3" was computed on the calculator.
From (b) observation to (a) possible explanation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
@zobot



In many cases. But as Protagoras said, it needn´t be causal.

If I am aware of an implication p→q and I see that q is indeed, then I can abduce that p is the original cause. When a car is new, it has no damages. However, when a car is undamaged I cannot presume that it is brand new. Perchance the owner is just cautious. For usual p is just an element of a set of potential causes.



There you have the key word: Common sense. Abducing is purely common sense.



More or less. Lets take that red house example again. Assume that you know the company that builds the house. Assume that they paint their houses exclusively with a specific color according to the prize of the house. If you know, that they build the house in a wealthy area you can make further assumptions and eventually abduce what the color of the house is. In this case you included several factors.


@qingdom

What about it?
It does not need to be causal. It is simply a way of reasoning given a particular matter of fact or certainty without knowing the actual conditions for that matter of fact or certainty, usually in order to make an 'educated guess' about the actual conditions for the given matter of fact or certainty. The 'educated guess' is then a hypothesis of what might be the actual conditions, in absence of reliable knowledge of the actual conditions. So, yes, if you see a house with red paint on it, and know that typically red paint gets on houses due to people painting the houses, then you can abduce that the house was painted red, because that is what is typically the case, even though you do not know the actual conditions for the red paint being on the house; you only have probable or possible conditions.



Of course you have, but I do not think they are typically differentiated as such.
I thank you both for restating the conditions I provided, in such a way that it enhances my understanding of the original problem.

I knew I could count on the people who I knew would take that question seriously---and more importantly, with real earnest. No abduction necessary.

Now, will somebody please kindly explain (to me, who feels mentally disabled for not ever being able to remember):

How does one go about "mentioning" another user in a post?

Help me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,486 Posts
You just copy & paste their hyperlinked name and put an @ before it.
@zobot
@zobot, though ensure you don't copy and paste the username, else formatting may stop it from working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zobot
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top