/sci/ - Science & Math

I like this image. Something to do with invention, application, creation, etc. Though, I suppose that abductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) is a form of creativity, deducting reasoning is a form of experimentation, and inductive reasoning processes results in progressive understanding.

Perhaps its important to stress that reason is often "bracketed out" from reality in the flesh?

>>14804588
Intuitive reasoning, which is actually responsible for nearly all the sane conclusions you'll ever come to.

>>14804605
And how does intuitive reasoning differ from abductive reasoning?

>>14804610
It's implicit and doesn't concern itself with any formally specifiable goals like finding the "simplest" or "likeliest" or otherwise "best" explanation.

>>14804621
But isn't that what your intuition is operating on anyway? When you have a hunch, you already are pointing to the most probable explanation. Abductive reasoning doesn't necessarily have to be about simplicity.

Seductive reasoning, aka just making up bullshit that sounds vaguely appealing.

>>14804588
Check out Graham Priest’s Introduction to non standard logic, there’s a ton of alternative reasoning systems in there. To give just one example not brought up yet: modal logics which talk about necessity vs possibility. Another example (not from that book but still popular) is deontic logic which gives a formal system for analyzing obligation vs permissibility

>>14804588
>>14804715
Basically logic studied in “Philosophy of Logic” is an alternative reasoning system to the ones you described.

>>14804666
Intuition isn't a hunch, it's "the muscle" of perception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G7wQK2TP7A
https://olavodecarvalhofb.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/radical-intuitionism/

What I call ‘radical intuitionism’ can be thus summarized:

Intuition means the non-mediated perception that something is PRESENT.

A logical proposition is MADE of signs, but the IDENTITY BETWEEN TWO PROPOSITIONS is an object that is perceived by consciousness directly, not through signs, and is, therefore, the object of intuition.

Furthermore, understanding these propositions is THE SAME as understanding without mediation its apodictic truth.

Again, if the identity between two propositions is not PRESENT to consciousness WITHOUT MEDIATION, then it is simply impossible to perceive it.

Either the conection between two propositions is perceived in a single intuition, or it is never perceived at all (otherwise we would fall into and endless regression).

Therefore, the operation of reason itself is founded upon intuition or it has no founding at all.

Hence, there are not two kinds of knowledge, one rational and the other intuitive. There is only the difference between logical intuitions and sensible intuitions.

Reasoning is not, therefore, an operation specifically different from intuition, it is just the intuition of a special kind of object, which is the logical or ideal objects.

More generically, a thing may be thought indirectly through a sign, but the sign itself has to be perceived directly and not through another sign.

>>14804741
Interesting. What are the objects of the sensible intuition? How does the logical intuition and sensible intuition interact with each other?

>>14804666
> When you have a hunch, you already are pointing to the most probable explanation.
Talking about "the most probable explanation" without any explicit context doesn't really mean much.

>>14804788
What explicit content is missing that you were looking for? I'm confused.

>>14804792
Most probable explanation? Most probable in light of what givens? What assumptions? What information is being taken into consideration? Where the the estimations for the unknowns come from? If we're talking about implicit, intuitive reasoning, there is no answer to any of those questions so talking about the most probable explanation makes no sense.

>>14804588
Divine Reasoning. Intuition that is whispered into your ears by angels.

>>14804588
Inductive is schizophrenia.

>>14804605
As well as the insane ones.

>>14804741
Not sure, why does that matter again? Your intuition still has to follow the rules of logic either way, you may as well just be using your conscious mind instead

>>14804847
>Actual bugman reply

>>14804851
If your intuition is so good how come you ain't rich.

>>14804851
No, I'm just stating again it literally has to follow the rules of logic to be considered valid. So why does it matter if it's your intuition, rather than your conscious mind?

>>14804699
You are not a loser because that's what you are. You see the Jews have been working for thousands of years to cause all the problems you have today resulting in you being a loser.

>>14804802
>Most probable explanation? Most probable in light of what givens? What assumptions? What information is being taken into consideration? Where the the estimations for the unknowns come from?
Given what you observed in light of everything you already know. See pic-related. You can't perform abductive reasoning without having some kind of framework to fall back on.

>>14804851
idk, I think it's a very good question. Doesn't the world operate in accordance to some logic, of cause and effect?

>>14804888
>Given what you observed in light of everything you already know.
How do you know what figures into it and what doesn't? Either way, it's not abductive reasoning and this is not up for discussion. I'm bored with intellectually mediocre and insecure autists and their endless kiddie contrarianism.

>>14804906
ummm no sweaty, your brain secretly follows the paradigm of abductive reasoning and comes to the most probable conclusion based on every piece of knowledge you have b-b-b-because it just does, okay?

>>14804906
What do you mean? Everything even remotely relevant figures into the thought process.
>>14804924
Probable in light of what you know. You don't have access to unknown unknowns. So, in a way, you never arrive at a "probable" explanation. That's why it's better to say "plausible" rather than probable.

>>14804976
>What do you mean?
Just what I said: there is no way to know what factors are taken into consideration and how they are taken to consideration, assuming there is anything resembling an abductive reasoning process at all. Either way, your theoretical fantasies are not even relevant. As far as your conscious thoughts go, there isn't any abductive reasoning, only leaps from A to B to C that you would struggle to rationally justify using any kind of explicit reasoning.

>>14804989
>there is no way to know what factors are taken into consideration and how they are taken to consideration,
Why does that matter? They reveal themselves in time by the explanations you choose among the others you could have possibly considered.
>As far as your conscious thoughts go, there isn't any abductive reasoning, only leaps from A to B to C that you would struggle to rationally justify using any kind of explicit reasoning.
Knowledge is usually implicit.

>>14805059
>Why does that matter?
Because your hypothesis degenerates into "w-w-well surely it was the most likely explanation under SOME context" which is vacuous.

>Knowledge is usually implicit.
Do certified NPCs like you possess metacognition? When you talk about your "reasoning" are you talking about a conscious thought process or do you just mean your circuitry causes an irresistible impulse to shit out some words and you don't understand how or why it happens?

>>14805071
>Because your hypothesis degenerates into "w-w-well surely it was the most likely explanation under SOME context" which is vacuous.
Every hypothesis is preliminary. That's why you have to test them. It's a fundamentally creative, holistic, and touch-and-go process. If you want me to admit that it's a subjective and often "fuzzy" form of reasoning, especially when it's untrained and unfocused, then sure. There's always a subjective component to knowledge, as it's based on one's prior understanding.
>>14805071
Do you even know what abductive reasoning is? Have you ever had a rigorous brainstorming session, then tried going down the rabbit hole for each explanation of why it made sense or was bullshit?

I feel like you're trying to expand the debate beyond the parameters of where it has to go. Metacognition can factor into abductive, deductive, or inductive reasoning.

>>14805103
Oh. I get it. You're a poorly programmed GPT bot.

>>14805107
Are you on your period?

>>14805109
>posts another retarded GPT response
Yep, you're almost certainly a bot. Every reaction of yours is either a generic tweet or a barely coherent tangent.

>>14805071
>"w-w-well surely it was the most likely explanation under SOME context"
Yeah, the context of what you just observed + what you already understood (often implicit). I don't know what's driving you crazy here.

>>14805116
If I'm a bot then you're certifiably schizophrenic. Probably not that bright too, considering you have a very hard time staying on topic.

>>14805118
>the context of what you just observed + what you already understood
That doesn't specify any concrete context.

>>14805122
>more generic spam
Keep proving my point.

>>14805125
That's the point. Abductive reasoning is a subjective process. All reasoning essentially is. Somebody has to do the reason-ing, catch my drift? If you're looking for me to say "well, uhhh abductive reasoning allows you to concretely delineate these axioms running in your brain while pinpointing on this particular event with these objective boundaries..." then you're far more autistic than I could feasibly imagine, even on my best days.

>>14805136
>more tangential rambling
I'm not surprised that you struggle with this so much because you clearly lack metacognition and aren't capable of any kind of reasoning at all.

>>14805144
Sounds like you don't have an argument. What I wrote sounds clear and straight to the point. If you have trouble understanding, ask a question and I'll be happy to explain.

>>14805174
I did make my argument: your hypothetical fantasy is unfalsifiable, which makes it beneath consideration, and in any case, if you can't trace any actual process for your "reasoning", it definitely doesn't fall under the same category as the other forms of reasoning in the OP.

>>14805186
>unfalsifiable
Oh, now I understand why you're raging hard. You're /that/ kind of person, somebody who has a hard time distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori topics. Yeah, no wonder this conversation was going nowhere.

>>14805197
Notice how you shat out another irrelevant reaction while the actual point stands completely undisputed.

>>14805199
Some things can't be falsified. If you're trying to get me to treat abductive reasoning as an empirical construct to be "falsified", then I'm afraid you're missing the point entirely. Anyway, you're not even trying to be rational now. I'm done.

>>14805210
>If you're trying to get me to treat abductive reasoning as an empirical construct
No one was trying to get you to do that. I guess you are actually disabled. Can you give me an example of what you think abductive reasoning is? You're a very special kid and it seems to me like you have a special idea of what it is.

>>14805234
I already gave you an example of abductive reasoning. When you come up with a hypothesis.

>>14805254
>I already gave you an example of abductive reasoning.
Cool. Give me another example of abductive reasoning.

>>14805265
Speculating. Brainstorming. I'd even hazard to say that artistic inspiration is similar to abductive reasoning, though it's less reasoning and more intuitive creation. But there is a structural resemblance.

>>14805281
Jesus fuck. Give me a concrete example of what you think abductive reasoning is.

>>14805282
here you go

>>14805310
So you mean to tell me the retards on this board don't know what abductive reasoning even is? Okay. That's more or less what I expected.

>>14804588
formally yes, with deductive reasoning you can write expert systems algorithms
with abductive reasoning you can write planification and diagnostic algorithms
with inductive reasoning you can write machine learning algorithms

the best way of reasoning through problems is:
- using a general abductive model to consider every possible paths of a problem where choices and actions made represent a graph
- using deductive methods while doing the graph search to find new paths based on rules you know
- using inductive methods as a heuristics to add "intuition" to the whole process, where through observations only, you discover new rules, that you can then use during the deductive steps

dubsductive reasoning is the most powerful

>>14805321
you want another concrete example? fine, here you go

>>14805334
See >>14805321
Some real trash getting washed up.

>>14805331
Great post.
>formally yes
What about informally? Or what other situation you meant when you added the qualifier formally?

>>14805337
this one is concrete science so it's falsifiable

>>14805342
You will shit out dozens of posts deflecting because you don't know what abductive reasoning is. lol

>>14805344
pic-related: me demonstrating to you IRL what abductive reasoning is

>>14805345
See >>14805344

>>14805347
idk what you want. you ask for examples, you're given them, but you then you change the requirements. are you seeking to understand or are you just wasting my time

>>14805350
See >>14805344. It is trivially easy for some who understands what abduction is, to give a concrete example. Someone who is extremely insecure in their "understanding" will shit out dozens of posts trying to deflect, on the other hand.

>>14805359
I gave you multiple concrete examples. for some reason that still wasn't enough. so I started shitposting. you never actually told me what you wanted or what you found lacking about those examples.

>>14805368
LOL. Okay, let me give you some concrete examples of how to give a concrete example.
Deductive reasoning:
>OP is a faggot.
>All faggots suck cocks.
>Therefore OP sucks cocks.

Inductive reasoning:
>90% of the sheep I saw in Italy are white
>Therefore 90% of the sheep in Italy are white

Now do it for abductive reasoning, dumb pseud. You will deflect again. :^)

>>14805339
I talked more or less about AI theory with the general methods we know today but to be honest Im a little shaky on the topic.
We started to write robust AI models after we came up with the general problem solver model in psychology but it heavily relied on a closed world hypothesis (we know everything we need to know to solve the problem) and only little to no heuristics.

But turns out that experts in many domains, like in Chess, arent actually that smart or knowledgeable, and a huge part of their success is through repeated trial and error that helps them build an intuition. They don't naturally come up with an optimal solution, nor do they do a literal graph search of all possible solutions, they literally just recognize a pattern and respond with a solution that came up through sheer experience and thousands of games played and spectated. They apply rules that are not optimal or proven to be, but were only learned through experience, and that build up their intuition.
This is how alphago worked, you can't actually expect the computer to process all the possible go moves, you need to add a heuristic to limit the search space on the graph of decisions, even if the actual optimal move is not present in the reduced space, you only need one that is good enough to win. And go players know these through experience, i.e. learning new rules that aren't provably optimal to win, but still allow them to get the advantage, basically intuition. So what alphago does is basically running an A* algorithm where the heuristic cost of each graph node is determined by a machine learning model, to both profit from the provable correctness of the graph search, and the intuitionist aspect of the heuristic.

To me, what we need is a way to ensure in a provable manner that the optimal solution is actually inside the reduced search space even if it completely counter intuitive. Like what differentiates the current AIs to true genius is ability to think outside the box.

>>14805375
>Lost my house keys.
>House is locked, so they're not inside.
>They're not in my car.
>I haven't been traveling around much that day.
>It was gym day, and I know I often misplace things while packing and unpacking my bag.
>I likely lost my house key in the gym.

>>14805444
Yeah, that's abductive reasoning. How about this:
>Lost my house keys
>I have a hunch that I left them in the gym
Is this abductive reasoning?

>>14805458
Yes. It's consolidated abductive reasoning. Where did that hunch come from? Past experiences. Knowledge. Perhaps >>14805444 played out enough times for you to know that:
>Yeah, I'm not going to waste time iterating through the possibilities, it's probably at the gym.
And then go back.

>>14805472
>Yes
Oh. Okay.
>Lost my house keys
>I have a hunch that I left them in the fridge
Is this abductive reasoning?

>>14805477
Yes. Your hunches don't come out of nowhere, and provide valuable information. They add weight to the plausibility of an explanation.

>>14805488
>Yes.
Oh. Okay.
>I can't find my house keys
>I think the government took them
Is this abductive reasoning?

>>14805490
Yes, but one probably built on shaky understanding. Your other example made more sense because plenty of people do derpy stuff like that, only to figure it out later based on a hunch.

>>14805520
>Yes
Ok, schizo. I think we're done here. In your free time, reflect on the objective differences between >>14805444 and >>14805490

>>14805526
You only asked if it was an example of abductive reasoning, you never asked if it was an example of *bad* abductive reasoning. It's one thing to generate hypotheses, it's another to refuse to test them altogether. Abductive reasoning with deductive reasoning (experimentation) and inductive reasoning (learning) will always be fifth-rate. If you know that your instinct is almost always right, and you have enough experience to know when to tell if it's a case where your instinct ought to be double-checked, then you might as cut to the chase and "test your hypothesis" here: >>14805477 and check the fridge. That's why I said that abductive reasoning always happens given what you observed in light of everything you already know here: >>14804888.

>>14805551
Abductive reasoning withOUT*** deductive reasoning

Besides, maybe >>14805490 is plausible if you're dealing with a government dissident who has been hassled by the authorities.

>>14805551
>You only asked if it was an example of abductive reasoning
Yeah, I just wanted to watch you say 'yes' again to show that you are, in fact, a retard. That's not abductive reasoning. Reflect on the objective differences between >>14805444 and >>14805490.

>>14805560
Explain to me how it's not abductive reasoning.

>>14805564
Abductive reasoning implies not only that you can demonstrate rationally that there is a possible causal relationship, but also justify why you're choosing a particular explanation over the alternatives. Your moronic version of abductive reasoning implies that literally any brain fart is autoamtically abductive reasoning which is nonsense.

>>14805383
>But turns out that experts in many domains, like in Chess, arent actually that smart or knowledgeable, and a huge part of their success is through repeated trial and error that helps them build an intuition.
Why are you considering intuition as different from intelligence or knowledge? Well, the former I can understand, especially if we're considering pattern recognition and creativity. But knowledge and intuition as you define it seem similar, no?
>To me, what we need is a way to ensure in a provable manner that the optimal solution is actually inside the reduced search space even if it completely counter intuitive.
From a layman's perspective, it sounds like you want AI to consider the ability to process the unknown unknown. Because the reduced search space set by a heuristic is the "hard" border of what can be known by the AI if I'm reading you correctly. Alternatively, perhaps AI needs to recognize patterns among patterns, the pattern that governs the myriad of rules, so it can go beyond merely one-upping the player in applying rules to win.

bump

bump

>>14804715
those are exclusively deductive reasoning though. are you drunk mate

>>14807122
Drunk on logic!

>>14807122
kek, glad somebody picked it up.

>>14805595
bump

>>14805590
>YOU DIDN'T JUSTIFY YOUR REASONING ENOUGH FOR ME SO IT DOESN'T COUNT
>JUSTIFICATION MATTERS BECAUSE... IT JUST DOES OKAY?!?!
wait until this nigga hears about the Gettier problem

>>14807728
You're a dumb pseud and the point stands unchallenged.

>>14807731
>y-y-you HAVE to justify it because justifying... it... it doesn't make something more true, BUT IT MAKES IT GOODER OKAY?!!?

>>14807790
What are you chimping out over? Nobody "has" to do anything. Just don't call it "abductive reasoning" when literally no reasoning is involved.

Induction is retarded and schizophrenic, say you jump off a house to see if you die, and you fall one story and you don’t die, and two stories still nothing, and three stories still nothing etc, the conclusion being that with each passing floor the conclusion of ”i’m not going to die by the next floor” gets more valid because well you tried for X floors and nothing happened so it surely is very unlikely to happen by the next floor

>>14807801
>it's not reasoning because... because... because I DON'T LIKE THE WAY YOU DID IT CHUD

>>14807815
Even in the loosest sense, reasoning is a conscious process by which a thinker reaches a conclusion. One way or another, "abductive reasoning" has an stablished meaning and it's not what you think it is. Why do functionally illiterate trogs always get so ass-blasted when they find out words and concepts aren't decided by their vague and low-IQ impressions?

>>14807834
>One way or another, "abductive reasoning" has an stablished meaning and it's not what you think it is.
What is it? Define it in your own words.

>>14807880
Considering all the available explanations and choosing the one that best explains the evidence.

>>14807932
What do you mean by best? Best according to who?

>>14807945
>What do you mean by best?
Philosophy spergs have written entire books and essays arguing about it, but that's not really relevant here. Conclusions with no traceable rhyme or reason behind them don't fall under that definition in any case.

>>14807954
>best is whatever I say it is, okay chud?! I don't have to define it

>>14808038
LOL. Why are you losing your mind?

>>14808079
>don't call me out for using weasel words like best! I don't want to define them, that's all.

>>14808111
Why are you losing your mind? Why does losing a reddit debate hurt you so much? :^(

>>14808121
>I'll never define what "best" means. It just means what eye want it to mean. That means eye win, chud!

>>14808124
Everything I've pointed out stands regardless of what "best" means. Why are you losing your mind with impotent rage?

>>14808129
>I'm not mad, y-y-you're mad.
>I literally can't stop replying, but I'm as c-c-cool as a cu-cu-cucumber.
>No, I won't define the most important part of my definition. "Best" means whatever the hell I want chud!

>>14807728
>>14807790
>>14807815
>>14807880
>>14808038
>>14808111
>>14808124
>>14808145
I'm rooting for this guy to win because wojaks are funny.

>>14808151
What's going on here?

>>14808145
You literally can't stop replying. Why are you losing your mind?

>>14808178
I just want you to define what you meant by "best", that's all.

>>14808181
I don't mean anything by it. It's not part of the argument. Why are you losing your mind, though?

>>14808185
It absolutely is a part of the argument. If you can't define the heuristic used to judge what makes one explanation better than another, then schizo can assert that his explanation is best and you're at an impasse.

>>14808197
>schizo can assert that his explanation is best
Maybe the schizo can, but you can't assert anything. You lose by default since your take doesn't involve evaluating any explanations at all. lol

>>14808200
The schizo's "best" was already implied by him giving you an honest answer. He genuinely thought the government took his keys out of all the options available to him.

>>14808255
>The schizo's "best" was implied
Then the schizo is in the same position that you are, you dumb gorilla nigger.

>>14808262
Consider your definition here: >>14807932
He chose the explanation that best explains the evidence. His best was different than yours. Explain that.

>>14808277
>He chose the explanation
So in your imaginary scenario, he did. Good on him. He's less of a dumb gorilla nigger than you are. lol

>>14805333
Impressive, very nice.

>>14808280
So you're saying that what the schizo did was abductive reasoning, correct?

>>14808316
I don't know. You're the real schizo and you can't seem to make up your mind about whether the imaginary schizo in your story is deliberating or just going with the first association that came to his mind.

>>14808352
Nobody ever specified if it was the first thing he came up with. And if we really want to get autistic about it, then according to you, one never fully does abductive reasoning unless they sit down and brainstorm the trillions of possible explanations before picking out the "best" one. There's always a practical cutoff, and you have yet to give any sort of indication of what that might be.

Just give it up. Abductive reasoning is a subjective process.

>>14808352
By the way, it was you who came up with the schizo. So if you don't even know what's going on in your little example, given that you control the story, then you're extremely retarded. How am I literally in your head controlling how your imagination works nigga lmfaoo

>>14808365
>according to you, one never fully does abductive reasoning unless they sit down and brainstorm the trillions of possible explanations
Why are you lying?

>>14808366
>if you don't even know what's going on in your little example
Why do you keep trying to lie your way out of it? Just close the thread or something. No one will know. Imagine getting this distraught over losing a reddit debate.

>>14808367
>>14808371
Are you bored yet, or are you going to keep responding? Because you've clearly lost track of the whole conversation, replying one bit at a time. At this point, it's getting sad. I thought you had a point but you're just farming (You)s. Are you so desperate for human interaction that you're willing to receive the simulation of it from a GPT bot?

>>14808382
>you've clearly lost track of the whole conversation
Well, no, you're simply losing your mind. Show me where I implied this:
>one never fully does abductive reasoning unless they sit down and brainstorm the trillions of possible explanations
You literally can't but you'll reply again because you're obsessed.

>>14808386
>uhhh no schizo didn't perform a heckin' abductive reasoning because he went with his first explanation. you have to consider ALL the available explanations.
>okay he doesn't literally have to consider ALL of the available explanations.

>>14808391
In other words, you're losing your mind and you can't link to any post where this is implied. You will reply again, anyway. :^)

>>14808394
I can link it right here: >>14807932
>Considering all the available explanations and choosing the one that best explains the evidence.
That is your post, isn't it anon? And when you say, all the available explanations, you mean it, right anon?

>>14808399
>when you say, all the available explanations, you mean it, right anon?
Yes. The explanation you can think of, or that are presented to you, are available explanations. When was the last time you had to sort through a trillion of them, you dumb ape? The thing is that you never evaluate anything at all. You clearly just shit out the first thing that comes to you. The very concept of conscious deliberation has been baffling you for hours.

>>14808409
>When was the last time you had to sort through a trillion of them, you dumb ape?
Hey, you're the one who said all. And if we literally mean "all the possible explanations", we're going to have to start counting some big numbers.
>that are presented to you, are available explanations.
What if only one explanation can be thought of or is presented to you? Is it abductive reasoning to just choose that explanation? What if you don't want to spend more time uncovering more explanations, e.g. you're pressed for time, or you're too lazy and uninspired.

>>14808433
>if we literally mean "all the possible explanations"
You and what other schizophrenics? That post doesn't say "all possible explanations". Your retardation kinda folds back on itself here in that instead of trying to find a reasonable interpretation of what "all avaliable explanations" means, you decided to go with the first unreasoned, impulsive monkey idea that came to you. lol

>What if only one explanation can be thought of or is presented to you?
>What if you don't want to spend more time uncovering more explanations, e.g. you're pressed for time, or you're too lazy and uninspired.
Nothing.

>>14808446
>You and what other schizophrenics? That post doesn't say "all possible explanations". Your retardation kinda folds back on itself here in that instead of trying to find a reasonable interpretation of what "all avaliable explanations" means, you decided to go with the first unreasoned, impulsive monkey idea that came to you. lol
All the possible explanations are available to you anon. It's up to you to put in the effort to uncover them.
>Nothing.
I beg your pardon?

>>14808470
>All the possible explanations are available to you anon
You obviously just got the meaning wrong. Why are you losing your mind over it instead of accepting your mistake and moving on?

>>14808473
Because you're not understanding the point that available is a flexible subset of possible.

>>14808477
>you're not understanding the point that available is a flexible subset of possible.
>you're not understanding
>YOU'RE not understanding
Oh, you dumb gorilla nigger. Good job. You finally managed to irritate me.

>>14808487
I've managed to move you from bored to irritated. I'm quite proud of myself.

>>14808522

>>14805595
bump, last good post in this thread

>>14804588
>muh latin words
Where's retroduction, production, obduction, conduction, eduction, reduction, and diduction?

>>14804588
>>14808856

Abductive reasoning

>>14809272
lol Gwaihir, we meet again. We had a nice conversation about Plato and Nick Land while ago.

>>14809473
Yep. I member. This sub is even more incoherent than x, btw

>>14805383
>>14805595
damn AI anon, wish you were still around

bump

>>14804588
Philosophynigger here. There's a classic problem with reasoning where we have no clear way of justifying neither deductive nor inductive reasoning. Since this seems to currently be the case, it seems obvious that reasoning is not restricted to these forms.

There have been many attempts to circumvent this problem, most famously Hegel's account of consciousness as it reasons through something. Hegel's approach is a little too wide though: it encompasses our reasons as involving social, political, economic, historic factors, etc, all at once. So, you're not just coming up with "E=McTwo" with a mix of inductive/deductive reasoning, you're also the inheritor of thousands of years of mathematical and physical development, you've been taught from an early age, you dont have to waste time building your house and hunting your food, and so on. It seems weird to consider these factors(esp the ones external to oneself) but they are/were all conscious activities, necessary for producing a reasoned result.

More understandable to us is something like the biases and forces that make us pursue one inference rather than another. Why study niggers, or make a nuke? These meta-decisions about WHICH thing we should deduce or induce are roughly the additional kind of reasoning that exists. Ironically, discovering more about this will take a little bit of time unfortunately since we're kind of in the middle of an ideological dark age

>>14812772
Holy low IQ pseudramble. This is the sort of stuff I'd expect from a poorly programmed GPT.

>>14812779
typical niqger

>>14812789
You will never be an intellectual.

>>14812790
and?

>>14812798
And you should embrace your status as a non-intellectual. i.e. stop trying to sound smart. Free yourself from the struggle to be something you're not and you'll be happer. :^)

>>14812772
Good post.
>There's a classic problem with reasoning where we have no clear way of justifying neither deductive nor inductive reasoning.
Well, why not go for "completeness", as in having a complete description of the types of reasoning, their functionality, and their relationship to other forms of reasoning? For starters, we're missing abductive reasoning in that list of deductive and inductive reasoning.

I also like to take a cue from Charles Sanders Peirce and analyze the types of reasoning by seeing what "elements" they focus on, for the lack of a better word, like in pic-related:
>abductive: labels, causes, possibilities
>deductive: data, effects, facts
>inductive: generation, rules, habits, etc.
And the funny thing about this is that it shows that reasoning is like a tripod, in that you cannot do abductive reasoning without some prior knowledge or observation, deductive reasoning without some prior knowledge and possibility in mind, inductive reasoning without some possibility in mind and observation, etc.

But you're also correct in pointing out that there has to be "meta-reasoning" involved in that list, too. Something that tells us when to switch from one form of reasoning to another. Something that allows us to step outside the boundaries of what is known and consider the unknown, the unknown unknown, randomness, the value of irrationality, etc. And this is probably going to be a value-driven form of reasoning, so it might *look* like deductive reasoning, but it will be more... like common sense, intentional, purposeful? Maybe like Aristotle's concept of phronesis.

What do you think?

>>14812925
>>14812925
well, how do you know if you have a complete list? since you don't have a view from above, presumably your list is complete when your conceptions of reasoning seem exhausted. That doesn't seem quite good enough. How do we know there won't be a 4th type of reasoning discovered soon?
The kinds of descriptions you suggest aren't fruitless, but they're ironically inexhaustible. You can endless conjure relations between reasoning, and also, you can endlessly conjure subdivisions in reasoning. After all, can't we say there are types of deductive reasoning, and further divisions among those types?

If we want to talk about types of reasoning /in general/, we'd probably need to be reductive, and simplifying to general laws (which is why it makes sense to me to keep abductive reasoning to a form of inductive reasoning)

In any case, the problems we face come from that fact that reasoning is something we're using, creating, and observing all at once. It's a whole bundle of bullshit that's tough to untangle and is almost useless to view hollistically.

>>14813649
>well, how do you know if you have a complete list? since you don't have a view from above, presumably your list is complete when your conceptions of reasoning seem exhausted. That doesn't seem quite good enough. How do we know there won't be a 4th type of reasoning discovered soon?
>You can endless conjure relations between reasoning, and also, you can endlessly conjure subdivisions in reasoning.
Start with phenomenology and try to be "parsimonious" yet "complete". There's also Peirce's reduction thesis which posits that all relations can be boiled down to combinations of monadic, dyadic, and triadic relations. More complex relations exist, but they're reducible. We don't have to worry too much about those.
>If we want to talk about types of reasoning /in general/, we'd probably need to be reductive, and simplifying to general laws (which is why it makes sense to me to keep abductive reasoning to a form of inductive reasoning)
But it's not a form of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning isn't creative the way abductive reasoning is.

bump

cump

dump

>>14813673
There's no way the reduction thesis can be right. If you posit a dyadic relation, you can immediately rephrase and reframe it as a monadic relation. Or, expand it into wider relations. The number of relations just seems like a practical way to think about whatever it is you're talking about.


>>14813673

It's different in a specific sense, but not in this most general sense:

Deductive reasoning always guarantees the conclusion from its premises.

Inductive reasoning provides a likelyhood but does not guarantee a conclusion.

>>14816098
The difference between deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning is not one of chance but one of structure and function.

>>14816107

the structure and function of deductive reasoning in the most general sense is that the conclusion is absolutely guaranteed by its premises

the structure and function of inductive reasoning in the most general sense is that the conclusion is not absolutely guaranteed by its premises

>>14817598
and where do you get premises from?

>>14804605
>Intuitive reasoning
As contradictory as a square circle. It is called intuition precisely because it doesn't involve reasoning.

>>14818252
intuition used to mean the highest form of reasoning

>>14804610
Intuitive reasoning may be based on entirely false premises (i.e. your delusions).

>>14822548
how does one get better premises

>>14822548
>Intuitive reasoning may be based on entirely false premises
That applies to any kind of reasoning. The irony is that intuitive reasoning is less prone to it than your """rationalist""" wansterism, which is notorious for its divorce from reality.

>>14823157
By trusting the experts.

>>14823172
How does one know if the experts have good premises? I trust the experts for demonstrative, syllogistic arguments. And perhaps having a broad array of demonstrative arguments, covering every possible angle, can give you some breathing space to work with in choosing premises. But who knows what premises experts are working with, or what contexts their research is being done in! Think about the fixation on "reason overcoming gut intuition", only to find that trusting your gut is actually a better choice than sterile reason in making good life choices in many arenas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtTJVKEjWw
So, when do you trust what?

>>14823182
>How does one know if the experts have good premises?
They just do, okay?

>>14823183
idk man... I can't see or taste a premise.

>>14823185
Why do you need to see or taste a premise?

>>14823195
to experience it to generate real understanding

>>14823290
Why does real understanding have to involve sense experience?

>>14823292
because it's one of the ways we navigate the world with. not having the sense experience makes something incomplete. that's probably why there's a sizable school of mathematicians who hated Bourbaki shit, like V. I. Arnold, because they thought it was "too far" from what actually generated mathematical intuition, e.g. analytical geometry combined with mechanics, the way Descartes originally imagined his revolution in mathematics.

why would you think that some understanding doesn't involve sense experience? perhaps it's not true understanding.

>>14823328
>because it's one of the ways we navigate the world with
So what?

>>14823335
don't you want to be better equipped to deal with the world? or would you rather be fumbling around in the dark all the time?

I guess if you prefer the latter, be my guest. that's your choice. just be aware that it comes with its own risks.

>>14823342
How does rejecting non-sense-related understanding make you better-equipped for dealing with the world?

>>14823389
>rejecting non-sense-related understanding
Never said that. Only sense-related understanding is just as incomplete, since you need a framework from which to process sensory information.

Here's a good example: you never truly understand what you're in for when you make a big life decision unless you actually experience it. You can search around for accounts. You can look at statistics. You can watch videos. You can look for analogies. You can try assembling it all together in your head and imagine what it would be like. But you can only go so far until you've, you know, experienced it and seen what premises were right, what premises were wrong, and what premises you failed to account for that others neglected to mention (because they became too obvious, like a fish neglecting to mention that they're swimming in water because that's all they know).