Konubinix' opinionated web of thoughts

Logic

fleeting

truth and Validity

statement

argument

argument

deductive argument

argument soundness

  • Référence externe :

inductive argument

abductive argument

To me, this kind of argument is what is used when applying the Occam’s razor. We cannot ensure the conclusion is true, but we can decided to believe it because we think it is the best we can do, considering our belief system.

time text
00:01:09.050 If you let your imagination rip,
00:01:11.720 you’ll be able to think of other possible
00:01:13.010 answers to the question […]
00:01:16.500 Nonetheless, given your background knowledge,
00:01:19.549 C seems like it’s the best explanation for P, or at least it’s a contender.
00:01:23.920 If it is, then P gives you good reason to believe C.
00:01:27.479 That’s how abductive arguments work.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:00:52.539 Notice that the promise doesn’t guarantee that the conclusion is true.
00:00:56.989 Something else might explain it instead.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:01:48.740 Abductive arguments are nonetheless extremely common in all walks of life.
00:01:53.240 It’s a very important critical thinking skill to be able to make,
00:01:57.320 spot, and evaluate abductive arguments.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:03:06.610 So what makes something a good explanation?
00:03:10.340 Well, there’s a lot of debate about this amongst philosophers,
00:03:14.150 but here are two characteristics of good explanations
00:03:16.340 that most generally agree about.
00:03:18.019 First, the more an explanation fits in with everything we already know,
00:03:23.040 the better it tends to be.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:03:53.799 Second, other things being equal,
00:03:57.310 a simpler explanation is better than a complicated one. […]
00:04:17.630 Since the original explanation is simpler, it’s preferable to this more complex one.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:04:24.700 Both fit and simplicity come in degrees,
00:04:27.340 and other factors are also relevant to how good an explanation is.
00:04:31.290 There’s no sure-fire recipe for saying when an explanation is the best one.
00:04:35.930 One way to challenge an abductive argument
00:04:39.260 is to try to come up with a better
00:04:40.700 explanation of the data than what the argument provides.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:04:43.780 Another way to challenge an abductive argument
00:04:47.160 is to look for more evidence to add to the promises. […]
00:05:12.790 It’s important when relying on an abductive argument
00:05:15.960 to make sure that you get all of the evidence that you can
00:05:18.730 and then consider all of the evidence before drawing your conclusion.
00:05:22.480 That’s because the fact that a conclusion is a good explanation for some
00:05:26.590 evidence doesn’t mean that it’s a good explanation for all of your evidence.
00:05:31.100 So, summing up.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

time text
00:05:33.660 Abductive arguments are a kind of ampliative argument:
00:05:37.100 their premises don’t guarantee their conclusions.
00:05:39.720 Abductive arguments involve an inference to the best explanation:
00:05:44.210 their conclusions are supposed to be the best explanations for their premises.
00:05:48.370 Abductive arguments play a central role in everyday life and scientific inquiry.
00:05:53.690 Good explanations tend to fit with our background knowledge
00:05:58.170 and to be simpler than the alternatives.
00:06:00.190 And finally, you can challenge an abductive argument by coming up
00:06:03.920 with a better explanation for the premises, or by finding
00:06:07.090 additional relevant evidence that isn’t well-explained by the conclusion.

see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vflZuk-_Hz4

deduction vs. induction vs. abduction

Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

Abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a probable conclusion from what you know.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

Deduction is generally defined as “the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

a syllogism in which the major premise is evident but the minor premise and therefore the conclusion only probable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

propositions or premises, lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge (it is nonampliative) because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies-statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

the conclusion is therefore probably true

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative). It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them?

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

ampliative argument

ref3.pdf

Term used by Peirce to denote arguments whose conclusions go beyond their premises (and hence amplify the scope of our beliefs). Inductive arguments and arguments to the best explanation are not deductively valid, but may yield credible conclusions. Most reasoning takes us to conclusions that go beyond our data, in ways that interest us.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095409681

deductive vs. ampliative; also, repletive vs. attenuative

  • Référence externe : http://tetrast.blogspot.com/2015/08/idara.html

    Deductive vs. ampliative; also, repletive vs. attenuative

    Summary of entailment-related properties (‘entail’ ≡ ‘deductively imply’) INFERENCES ↓PROOF-THEORETICALLY:MODEL-THEORETICALLY: Deductive:The premisses entail the conclusion.Automatically preserves truth. Ampliative (i.e., non-deductive):The premisses do not entail the conclusion.Does not automatically preserve truth. Repletive:The premisses are entailed by the conclusion.Automatically preserves falsity. Attenuative (i.e., non-repletive):The premisses are not entailed by the conclusion.Does not automatically preserve falsity

    http://tetrast.blogspot.com/2015/08/idara.html

Intersections of kinds of inference: Inferences Deductive: Ampliative (i.e., non-deductive):

Repletive: Reversible (i.e., equivalential) deduction. Induction, as one often thinks of it (but often not as it is actually framed*).

Attenuative (i.e., non-repletive): ‘Forward-only’ deduction.

Surmise, conjecture, abductive inference (and often induction as actually framed*).

http://tetrast.blogspot.com/2015/08/idara.html

validité d’un argument: comment démontrer n’importe quoi

statement vs argument

Somebody who makes a statement claims that something is true. If you do not know anything about it, this claim alone will not help you much in deciding if you should accept it or not. Somebody who makes an argument for a claim tries to show (by logical inference) that if you already accept some other statements (the premises) you should also accept (and believe) the statement in question (the conclusion).

https://argdown.org/syntax/

argument mapping

Visualiser les arguments dans un graphe

argdown

Un outil d’argument mapping qui a l’air prometteur

sketching the argumentation

Sketching the argumentation It’s straight-forward to copy & paste the pros and cons into an Argdown document

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

Some of the above argument descriptions actually seem to contain different lines of thought, and it’s recommendable to split those descriptions up so that each argument is represented in Argdown by its own element.

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

questionable whether all pros and cons are directly supporting or attacking the central claim. Granted, <P1a>, for example, is doing so. But <C2> seems to be attacking the argument <P2>rather than attacking central thesis directly. Likewise, <C1b>is best interpreted as an attack on <P1b>. To effect these changes in Argdown, we simply have to shift and indent the corresponding list items

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

debate involves a further central claim

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

reconstructing the argumentation

How exactly do the different arguments work? We answer this question by reconstructing the individual arguments as premise-conclusion-structures. In doing so, one will typically revise the sketched dialectical relations between arguments and statements

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

advisable to start to reconstruct the most central arguments first and to move, gradually, to less central arguments

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

If all arguments are fully reconstructed, the Argdown document may simply consist in a list of statements, and arguments with attached premise-conclusion-structures.

https://argdown.org/guide/a-first-example.html

argdown method

raisonnement contre-factuel

Le raisonnement contre-factuel est un type particulier de raisonnement qui consiste à modifier en imagination l’issue d’un évènement en modifiant l’une de ses causes

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisonnement_contre-factuel

Notes pointant ici