The longer video format is good. Considering how some subjects require a lot of explanation, I don't see how you would avoid it. It seems to me that "the best explanation" is a matter of preference. It's an inference to the favorite explanation.
On a different note, it might be noted that at 20:00, you implicitly claimed reliability is a necessary condition for a valid method of argument, whilst objecting to Russell's argument against scepticism from abduction. But this is a substantive position on epistemology (one half of a position called Reliabilism).
I think you went a little too fast with this video. While you gave a basic explanation of what abductive reasoning is, you didn't explain very well how abductive arguments are used: what's their structure, how to justify the premises, what criteria is used to determine what makes an explanation good and what are some examples of simple or classic instances of abductive arguments? In focusing so much on objections to abductive reasoning and it's proposed applications, it remains slightly unclear what exactly you are objecting against and thus it makes it hard to evaluate and understand the objections.
As for Standards, say Justified True Belief Theory, I’d say Truth has at minimum 2 qualities. 1 is mind independence, such as simply because one perceives something doesn’t denote that thing exists because human senses are full of folly. The second would be language independence such as simply because one has a definition of a thing doesn’t denote that that thing exists. These are necessary conditions, but not sufficient. I’d love debate on these two if anyone has any refutations :)
I myself have a somewhat tight schedule, and that means missing many many of your videos on my feed (and it gets less likely for me to watch them if I don't see them in my feed). So if by a new way of doing your videos you mean 30 minute video on sunday mornings, then I'm all for it (I like the irony that some people might be in church at the same time as I'm learning about things like these). But that's speaking for me. I find it very likely that it is best for you to do it the other way. The subject of your videos is already limiting your viewers given that it's somewhat complicated or at least not in the radar of common people. If you add to that they also need 30 minutes straight, and some attention spam, then you might be in trouble and Iay be the minority in liking this style. Apart from that technical issue, I liked how it started and finished a subject on one go at it, since sometimes I forget part of the previous videos when watching other series. On the other hand, sometimes the time between videos helped me chew them, and I came more prepared and with some questions already on my mind, which would then be answered and, it seems to me, enrich the experience.
Alejandro Quiñones Thanks for the input. I'll probably continue doing longer videos on the weekends and one or two series of shorter ones during the week. It will probably depend on the material more than anything.
I believe you made the same mistake here regarding Bayesian priors as you did in your video dedicated to Bayesian priors. That is, failing to expand P(h&e) and P(e) in terms of things which we can sensibly assign priors to. P(h|e) = P(h&e)/P(e), but we can expand P(h&e) = P(e|h)P(h), and we can expand P(e) = P(e|h)P(h) + P(e|~h)P(~h). In fact, if we have disjoint hypotheses h,i,j,k,..etc, we can expand P(e) = P(e|h)P(h) + P(e|i)P(i) + P(e|j)P(j) + P(e|k)P(k) + ... + P(e|U)P(U), where U is defined as the union ~h u ~i u ~j u ~k ... .Now P(h), P(i), P(j), P(k) etc can all be assigned values depending on which of them is our best explanation of the world (given everything we know about it) prior to observing the evidence e, scaling them such that their sum is
+White Dove Sounds like a cool topic. I am not well versed enough on the distinction now to provide comment, but i will put it on my list of videos to make. Thanks!
(constructive criticism) this video could’ve been so much better. 1. You didn’t explain/give examples of some of the explanatory virtues except occam’s razor. 2. The format of this video just breaths your skepticism bias, you didn’t explain abduction (IBE) well enough, rather you gave objections the entire video.
If you have responses to my objections, please offer them, but claiming that you don't like my video does not give us a reason to think abduction is a good method for argument. My offering objections to a bad, unjustified, methodology isn't bias. We shouldn't treat bad arguments as equal to good ones, that's fairness bias. If you think there is a better explanatory virtue that can justify a relationship between explanation and truth, please offer it.
30 minutes and no definition of what "explanatory power" is, what "the best explanation is" or how to tell which explanation is "best" . waste of time. not useful at all. you've spent 30 minutes talking about abduction without telling people how to do abduction.
bena berry What do you want to learn? Here's a Brand New Channel Guide: ruclips.net/video/qVWpwgRPsMM/видео.html with links to basically all 400 of the videos here. Thanks for watching!
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
The longer video format is good. Considering how some subjects require a lot of explanation, I don't see how you would avoid it. It seems to me that "the best explanation" is a matter of preference. It's an inference to the favorite explanation.
On a different note, it might be noted that at 20:00, you implicitly claimed reliability is a necessary condition for a valid method of argument, whilst objecting to Russell's argument against scepticism from abduction. But this is a substantive position on epistemology (one half of a position called Reliabilism).
I think you went a little too fast with this video. While you gave a basic explanation of what abductive reasoning is, you didn't explain very well how abductive arguments are used: what's their structure, how to justify the premises, what criteria is used to determine what makes an explanation good and what are some examples of simple or classic instances of abductive arguments?
In focusing so much on objections to abductive reasoning and it's proposed applications, it remains slightly unclear what exactly you are objecting against and thus it makes it hard to evaluate and understand the objections.
This is a problem i keep encountering over and over again.
As for Standards, say Justified True Belief Theory, I’d say Truth has at minimum 2 qualities. 1 is mind independence, such as simply because one perceives something doesn’t denote that thing exists because human senses are full of folly. The second would be language independence such as simply because one has a definition of a thing doesn’t denote that that thing exists. These are necessary conditions, but not sufficient. I’d love debate on these two if anyone has any refutations :)
I myself have a somewhat tight schedule, and that means missing many many of your videos on my feed (and it gets less likely for me to watch them if I don't see them in my feed). So if by a new way of doing your videos you mean 30 minute video on sunday mornings, then I'm all for it (I like the irony that some people might be in church at the same time as I'm learning about things like these). But that's speaking for me. I find it very likely that it is best for you to do it the other way. The subject of your videos is already limiting your viewers given that it's somewhat complicated or at least not in the radar of common people. If you add to that they also need 30 minutes straight, and some attention spam, then you might be in trouble and Iay be the minority in liking this style.
Apart from that technical issue, I liked how it started and finished a subject on one go at it, since sometimes I forget part of the previous videos when watching other series. On the other hand, sometimes the time between videos helped me chew them, and I came more prepared and with some questions already on my mind, which would then be answered and, it seems to me, enrich the experience.
Alejandro Quiñones Thanks for the input. I'll probably continue doing longer videos on the weekends and one or two series of shorter ones during the week. It will probably depend on the material more than anything.
I think I like this style better.
I believe you made the same mistake here regarding Bayesian priors as you did in your video dedicated to Bayesian priors. That is, failing to expand P(h&e) and P(e) in terms of things which we can sensibly assign priors to. P(h|e) = P(h&e)/P(e), but we can expand P(h&e) = P(e|h)P(h), and we can expand P(e) = P(e|h)P(h) + P(e|~h)P(~h). In fact, if we have disjoint hypotheses h,i,j,k,..etc, we can expand P(e) = P(e|h)P(h) + P(e|i)P(i) + P(e|j)P(j) + P(e|k)P(k) + ... + P(e|U)P(U), where U is defined as the union ~h u ~i u ~j u ~k ... .Now P(h), P(i), P(j), P(k) etc can all be assigned values depending on which of them is our best explanation of the world (given everything we know about it) prior to observing the evidence e, scaling them such that their sum is
I like longer vedio it help people focus
Could you please do a video about Retroduction and Retrodiction.
+White Dove Sounds like a cool topic. I am not well versed enough on the distinction now to provide comment, but i will put it on my list of videos to make. Thanks!
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Did you make a video on either concepts?
(constructive criticism) this video could’ve been so much better. 1. You didn’t explain/give examples of some of the explanatory virtues except occam’s razor. 2. The format of this video just breaths your skepticism bias, you didn’t explain abduction (IBE) well enough, rather you gave objections the entire video.
If you have responses to my objections, please offer them, but claiming that you don't like my video does not give us a reason to think abduction is a good method for argument. My offering objections to a bad, unjustified, methodology isn't bias. We shouldn't treat bad arguments as equal to good ones, that's fairness bias. If you think there is a better explanatory virtue that can justify a relationship between explanation and truth, please offer it.
Did he say stay skeptical at the end?
Ngqabutho Mafu yeah.
I don't think truth comes from abduction. but it does guide an idea as better than its risks
rivals
is abduction a priori?
Not necessarily, it can be a priori, a posteriori or impure (both).
30 minutes and no definition of what "explanatory power" is, what "the best explanation is" or how to tell which explanation is "best" . waste of time. not useful at all. you've spent 30 minutes talking about abduction without telling people how to do abduction.
I came looking to improve my mind. But I left stupider
I can appreciate you wanting to distance your identity from your videos, but it sure makes it hard to cite you.
citing a youtube video? are you fucking kidding me!?
I come here to learn stuff...
bena berry What do you want to learn? Here's a Brand New Channel Guide: ruclips.net/video/qVWpwgRPsMM/видео.html with links to basically all 400 of the videos here. Thanks for watching!
Style change? Cut the crap and get to a point :)