[PEN-L:11423] Re: deduction vs. induction

[HANLY@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Jim Devine writes:
Both attitudes are full of BS. Why can't induction and deduction be used
together, as complements? And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction,
often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out
"answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is
obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett
Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE
MODERN AGE, p. 179.)

COMMENT:  I agree with Jim that induction and deduction can be
complementary in that induction or abduction could be used to generate
hypotheses that can then be tested through deduction of what must be true
if the hypotheses are correct. While the hypothetico-deductive method no doubt
stresses the deductive aspect overmuch and relied too much on problematic
positivist ideas of verification (or falsification with Popper) it still
strikes me as far superior to the model of Lakatos who along with Kuhn
seem to me to be vastly over-rated philosophers of science.While Kuhn's
description of historical paradigm shifts is interesting enough his
epistemological relativism  in which he holds (along with that other
goofus Feyerabend)  that there is no
 body of neutral judgments to test hypotheses (since all observation is
said to be theory laden -including this observation of Kuhn?)
is just plain goofiness on stilts
no matter how popular it may be. Although
Lakatos' points out real problems in Popper's falsificationist view, Popper
is by far the more original thinker.
	As far as I know, the term "abduction" , was first used by Peirce
in much the manner Fischer suggests. Abduction is the process by which
we form a hypothesis which we think best explains a particular event. It would
be the sort of thinking that Sherlock Holmes was good at. On the other hand
induction arrives at a generalisation said to be supported by the particulars.
All observed crows ( Crow A, B, C, etc.) are black therefore all crows are
black. The generalisation does not follow deductively from the premisses about
particular observed crows. Generalisation about causes such as Mill's methods
would be other examples.No doubt abduction often involves, though it is not
identical with, inductive generalisation. Peirce, however, uses terms in
imprecise ways. In fact in his later work he uses abduction to refer to any of
the norms that might guide a person in formulating a hypothesis and deciding
which hypotheses are to be taken as a serious explanation.
                Cheers, Ken Hanly