Isn’t man 2 also performing a fallacy by stating “it’s not 4”? It would be safer to say “I’m not sure it’s 4”. The original first statement is a positive claim about the answer not being 4, while the second statement is about the lack of surety that 4 is the answer.
The last example is hilarious. A video topic request, ignosticism (not to be confused with agnosticism). But not from the theistic point of reference (even though that's pretty much what it's about or at least commonly used). Instead, from the idea of the importance of definitions. If not, no worries, just a thought.
Maybe you covered this in your previous video on abduction more generally, but how isn't *all* abduction fallacious, if an abductive argument doesn't actually prove its conclusion? It seems like to make an abductive argument you first need to demonstrate that some explanation is actually the best one for some phenomenon, some kind of probability analysis or something, just to get your premises to argue from... and then the argument consists of nothing more than the statement of those premises, or else fallacy as discussed here. "This is the best explanation, therefore... this is the best explanation." To be any more than bare assertion, you need to *argue that* it is the best explanation, and *that* argument had better actually be deductively valid, even if the conclusion is merely "this explanation is more likely than any other", not "this explanation is definitely correct". And I'm sure someone could retort that induction is just as invalid as abduction according to this line of argument... and as a critical rationalist I would agree. Only deduction is a valid form of argument. That means all we can know about the observable world (as opposed to logic and math) is that certain theories are *not* the correct ones, because they contradict observations... and even that only if we first accept empiricism.
It is not fallacious because it is not deductive reasoning, abduction is equivalent to making the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. It doesn't assume the truth of its premises, just like inductive reasoning doesn't. Neither induction nor abduction can be said to be valid in the logical sense. Technically speaking making an inductive inference can be an instance of making the informal fallacy of induction, which is treating inductive arguments like deductive arguments. That being said, whether an argument is valid depends only on its logical structure, so one could make an argument that is parallel to an inductive or abductive argument, but is still valid, for example: 1. All swans I have seen are white. 2. Therefore it is likely that all swans are white. This is an inductive argument, but: 3. I have seen white swans 4. There are no swans that are not white. 5. Therefore all swans are white. This argument would be valid. Likewise: 6. All swans are white. 7. I see a white animal. 8. Therefore it is a swan. but also: 9. Swans are the only white animals 10. I have seen a white animal. 11. Therefore it is a swan.
@@werrkowalski2985 Exactly, only deduction is valid. As in, deductive arguments are the only ones that give you good reason to believe their conclusions. Abduction and induction both get you nothing; they always might be wrong.
@@Pfhorrest I used "valid" there in the sense it is used in logic, the meaning of validity in logic is quite distinct from meaning of validity in everyday speech, there it means more something like "reasonable", "making sense". If you were committed to the belief that only deduction can give you good reasons to believe something is true, then you would have to abandon the entirety of science, as it is based on inductive reasoning. Also, Carneades is a skeptic, and he would question the possibility of knowledge, he would question whether we can know anything for sure, so all of our beliefs would involve some degree of uncertainty, just like science. So we wouldn't know with certainty whether the fundamental beliefs we hold are true, hence all of our reasoning would be based on inductive, or abductive reasoning. In short, I don't think that inductive reasoning cannot give good enough reasons to hold certain beliefs. A rather common view of knowledge in philosophy is that even though we may hold beliefs that we think are justified, and so we could say we know they are true, we would have different degrees of certainty of different views, so to say we would be willing to take different bets that certain beliefs we hold are true. We may think a belief is justified, but we may not always know if it is sufficiently justified. I would say that some beliefs would be very hard to deny to be true, and would be basically impossible to believe are false if we were to also to follow through with the logical conclusions of holding these beliefs to be false. Like for example a belief that I exist, or that solipsism isn't true, so I don't think I am as much of a skeptic as Carneades is.
@@werrkowalski2985 Science is not definitively based on inductive reasoning. Most scientists subscribe to falsificationism as the best model of how science works, and falsificationism is specifically motivated by the failings of induction or especially abduction to give good reasons to believe things.
@@Pfhorrest Induction is reasoning general laws from specific instances. One approach would be to take a set of observations, and then reason from them a general rule, that would be a positivist approach, an approach which was used at some point. Falsification takes a scientific theory and then seeks to falsify it, if it can't, then there is a set of theories that could be true, we may not know the complete set either. So here instead of induction we would use abduction to choose one of the theories to make predictions. But another thing is that, I'm not even sure if relying on falsification solves the problem of induction, it doesn't really seem to put a scientist relying on falsification in any better position than a scientist relying on verification. Even if our observations can falsify some theories, then it doesn't mean that for example we are sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would need to again falsify the hypothesis tomorrow. For example now there are theories that the laws of physics may not be exactly the same everywhere in the universe, we would have a hard time verifying that hypothesis, so all of our theories we consider as possible alternatives could still be wrong. In other words, we may have a set of theories that went through a falsification process, but because we cannot be absolutely sure that the observations tomorrow, or at any arbitrary point in the future will not falsify our theories, we face the same problem a positivist does, still we cannot guarantee that any theory we may come up with won't be falsified in the future.
The tendency to commit the fallacy probably stems in part from the fact that there is often a first step, a first explanation to get the inquiring enterprise underway. Consider, "Nature abhors a vacuum." This was a false explanation even though it may have had intuitive appeal. Moreover, if you had followed this rule about nature and a vacuum, it would have actually served you quite well in your practical pursuits. To that extent, at least, it was a valuable belief. This then is taken as supportive of the idea that an explanation which serves us well and helps in practical matters is better than no explanation.
This line of thinking also explains most conspiracies. Although I would also like to add that it covers atheists equally evenly. The Big Bang comes to mind, as a great example of a best explanation being used as conclusion in arguments.
It does seem conspiracies are often built on fallacies. For the big bang, I would note a couple of things, first that's a scientific realist position not an atheist one (ruclips.net/video/i3DlhNgeqZk/видео.html). Second, it depends on the argument, whether this fallacy is committed. If the argument is "The Big Bang is the best explanation for the universe, therefore the Big Bang existed." then yes, that is the fallacy. If the argument is "The Big Bang is a better explanation for the universe than God, therefore your argument that God is the best or only explanation for the universe is unjustified." Then no, that is not an instance of this fallacy, since it is not asserting the Big Bang is true. I see the latter far more than the former, but my sample may be biased.
🤔 What is the relevance to this issue of glibly mixing atheism and cosmology? They have no direct connections with one another at all. Perhaps your prejudices have made a brief appearance in your comment? I remind you that atheism requires verifiable evidence for the claims of the existence of supernatural deities, not mere hearsay. Cosmology has nothing to say on the matter, but is concerned with the overall understanding of the universe as perceived by us through scientific evidence.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat I’ve often heard atheists cite the Big Bang theory as proof of their stance. You can Google this if you’re unfamiliar with this line of argument, as it is common.
The fallacious nature of the argument form is clear, however, the door example differs from the math example in one important respect which makes it more reasonable as a practical way of arriving at provisional beliefs. The door example is a disguised form of probabilistic reasoning if we are proceeding from experience with open doors. E.g., suppose that in the past a door discovered to be open was the result of you leaving it open on 6 occasions, the wind blowing it on 3 occasions, and someone purposely leaving it open on one occasion. So of the 10 observations, the majority of open doors were actually left open by you. Then we might assume you left it open. But the math problem is not, as far as I can see, really based on experience or actual data.
If I'm a greek living 500 BC and I say I have the correct explanation for lightning - Zeus - is this an abductive fallacy, or an argument from ignorance? The line between the two fallacies seems a bit murky. My understanding is that if I say it's Zeus because it's the best available answer, that's the abductive fallacy. But if I say it's Zeus because my fellow greeks can't prove that it isn't, that's an argument from ignorance. And if I say it's Zeus because it's the best available explanation and no one can prove that it isn't, I'm commiting both fallacies.
"The best available explanation available could be false." I feel attacked. On a serious note, i recently got into an argument with somwone that was, i guess you coukd say arguing backwards? Taking future events into account as evidence of the protagonists objectively poor choices, when the protagonist had no access to reading the future. ...its tangentally related to the best available explanation possibly not being the best one, perhaps even disastrous, but judging one harshly tomorrow for making the best choices of today hardly seems fair or even logical.
😖 You are ignorant and your comment is ridiculous. There is so much verifiable evidence to substantiate the work of Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace and thousands of others since. The use of ‘thought’ in your comment, given what you state, is laughable. Really!
my name for it is the 'Bayesian fallacy': this, I would dare to say, is the best name we have for it so far
I love fallacies. My favorite part of all philosophy!
Euthydemus wrote this
They certainly are useful. I am of the opinion that logic and reasoning should be manditory curriculum in schools.
@@DLCguy 100% agreed. It would help society and prevent politicians and people in general from making boldly fallacious arguments in public so often.
@@DLCguy a lot of things that should be mandatory in schools are currently not and vice versa
Definitely in my top 3!
Excellent explanations. I use this when Muslims bring Quran 52:35
-36 as an argument for the creation of the universe.
Very good example of the abductive fallacy there at the end. Great presentation.
Isn’t man 2 also performing a fallacy by stating “it’s not 4”?
It would be safer to say “I’m not sure it’s 4”.
The original first statement is a positive claim about the answer not being 4, while the second statement is about the lack of surety that 4 is the answer.
The last example is hilarious.
A video topic request, ignosticism (not to be confused with agnosticism). But not from the theistic point of reference (even though that's pretty much what it's about or at least commonly used). Instead, from the idea of the importance of definitions. If not, no worries, just a thought.
I really enjoy SMBC and your videos so it was a treat to see one of the comics referenced in your videos.
The answer to the math problem is approx. 178,910,723.64382164633645643744709
so, like, basically 4.
Maybe you covered this in your previous video on abduction more generally, but how isn't *all* abduction fallacious, if an abductive argument doesn't actually prove its conclusion? It seems like to make an abductive argument you first need to demonstrate that some explanation is actually the best one for some phenomenon, some kind of probability analysis or something, just to get your premises to argue from... and then the argument consists of nothing more than the statement of those premises, or else fallacy as discussed here. "This is the best explanation, therefore... this is the best explanation." To be any more than bare assertion, you need to *argue that* it is the best explanation, and *that* argument had better actually be deductively valid, even if the conclusion is merely "this explanation is more likely than any other", not "this explanation is definitely correct".
And I'm sure someone could retort that induction is just as invalid as abduction according to this line of argument... and as a critical rationalist I would agree. Only deduction is a valid form of argument. That means all we can know about the observable world (as opposed to logic and math) is that certain theories are *not* the correct ones, because they contradict observations... and even that only if we first accept empiricism.
It is not fallacious because it is not deductive reasoning, abduction is equivalent to making the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. It doesn't assume the truth of its premises, just like inductive reasoning doesn't. Neither induction nor abduction can be said to be valid in the logical sense. Technically speaking making an inductive inference can be an instance of making the informal fallacy of induction, which is treating inductive arguments like deductive arguments.
That being said, whether an argument is valid depends only on its logical structure, so one could make an argument that is parallel to an inductive or abductive argument, but is still valid, for example:
1. All swans I have seen are white.
2. Therefore it is likely that all swans are white.
This is an inductive argument, but:
3. I have seen white swans
4. There are no swans that are not white.
5. Therefore all swans are white.
This argument would be valid.
Likewise:
6. All swans are white.
7. I see a white animal.
8. Therefore it is a swan.
but also:
9. Swans are the only white animals
10. I have seen a white animal.
11. Therefore it is a swan.
@@werrkowalski2985 Exactly, only deduction is valid. As in, deductive arguments are the only ones that give you good reason to believe their conclusions. Abduction and induction both get you nothing; they always might be wrong.
@@Pfhorrest I used "valid" there in the sense it is used in logic, the meaning of validity in logic is quite distinct from meaning of validity in everyday speech, there it means more something like "reasonable", "making sense". If you were committed to the belief that only deduction can give you good reasons to believe something is true, then you would have to abandon the entirety of science, as it is based on inductive reasoning. Also, Carneades is a skeptic, and he would question the possibility of knowledge, he would question whether we can know anything for sure, so all of our beliefs would involve some degree of uncertainty, just like science. So we wouldn't know with certainty whether the fundamental beliefs we hold are true, hence all of our reasoning would be based on inductive, or abductive reasoning.
In short, I don't think that inductive reasoning cannot give good enough reasons to hold certain beliefs. A rather common view of knowledge in philosophy is that even though we may hold beliefs that we think are justified, and so we could say we know they are true, we would have different degrees of certainty of different views, so to say we would be willing to take different bets that certain beliefs we hold are true. We may think a belief is justified, but we may not always know if it is sufficiently justified. I would say that some beliefs would be very hard to deny to be true, and would be basically impossible to believe are false if we were to also to follow through with the logical conclusions of holding these beliefs to be false. Like for example a belief that I exist, or that solipsism isn't true, so I don't think I am as much of a skeptic as Carneades is.
@@werrkowalski2985 Science is not definitively based on inductive reasoning. Most scientists subscribe to falsificationism as the best model of how science works, and falsificationism is specifically motivated by the failings of induction or especially abduction to give good reasons to believe things.
@@Pfhorrest Induction is reasoning general laws from specific instances. One approach would be to take a set of observations, and then reason from them a general rule, that would be a positivist approach, an approach which was used at some point. Falsification takes a scientific theory and then seeks to falsify it, if it can't, then there is a set of theories that could be true, we may not know the complete set either. So here instead of induction we would use abduction to choose one of the theories to make predictions.
But another thing is that, I'm not even sure if relying on falsification solves the problem of induction, it doesn't really seem to put a scientist relying on falsification in any better position than a scientist relying on verification. Even if our observations can falsify some theories, then it doesn't mean that for example we are sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would need to again falsify the hypothesis tomorrow. For example now there are theories that the laws of physics may not be exactly the same everywhere in the universe, we would have a hard time verifying that hypothesis, so all of our theories we consider as possible alternatives could still be wrong. In other words, we may have a set of theories that went through a falsification process, but because we cannot be absolutely sure that the observations tomorrow, or at any arbitrary point in the future will not falsify our theories, we face the same problem a positivist does, still we cannot guarantee that any theory we may come up with won't be falsified in the future.
Thumbs up for quoting SMBC! :D
The tendency to commit the fallacy probably stems in part from the fact that there is often a first step, a first explanation to get the inquiring enterprise underway. Consider, "Nature abhors a vacuum." This was a false explanation even though it may have had intuitive appeal. Moreover, if you had followed this rule about nature and a vacuum, it would have actually served you quite well in your practical pursuits. To that extent, at least, it was a valuable belief. This then is taken as supportive of the idea that an explanation which serves us well and helps in practical matters is better than no explanation.
This line of thinking also explains most conspiracies.
Although I would also like to add that it covers atheists equally evenly. The Big Bang comes to mind, as a great example of a best explanation being used as conclusion in arguments.
It does seem conspiracies are often built on fallacies.
For the big bang, I would note a couple of things, first that's a scientific realist position not an atheist one (ruclips.net/video/i3DlhNgeqZk/видео.html). Second, it depends on the argument, whether this fallacy is committed. If the argument is "The Big Bang is the best explanation for the universe, therefore the Big Bang existed." then yes, that is the fallacy. If the argument is "The Big Bang is a better explanation for the universe than God, therefore your argument that God is the best or only explanation for the universe is unjustified." Then no, that is not an instance of this fallacy, since it is not asserting the Big Bang is true. I see the latter far more than the former, but my sample may be biased.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene So this line of reasoning is only a fallacy when it's used as an absolute, not as a relative way of comparing 2 things.
🤔 What is the relevance to this issue of glibly mixing atheism and cosmology? They have no direct connections with one another at all. Perhaps your prejudices have made a brief appearance in your comment? I remind you that atheism requires verifiable evidence for the claims of the existence of supernatural deities, not mere hearsay. Cosmology has nothing to say on the matter, but is concerned with the overall understanding of the universe as perceived by us through scientific evidence.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat I’ve often heard atheists cite the Big Bang theory as proof of their stance. You can Google this if you’re unfamiliar with this line of argument, as it is common.
The fallacious nature of the argument form is clear, however, the door example differs from the math example in one important respect which makes it more reasonable as a practical way of arriving at provisional beliefs. The door example is a disguised form of probabilistic reasoning if we are proceeding from experience with open doors. E.g., suppose that in the past a door discovered to be open was the result of you leaving it open on 6 occasions, the wind blowing it on 3 occasions, and someone purposely leaving it open on one occasion. So of the 10 observations, the majority of open doors were actually left open by you. Then we might assume you left it open. But the math problem is not, as far as I can see, really based on experience or actual data.
If I'm a greek living 500 BC and I say I have the correct explanation for lightning - Zeus - is this an abductive fallacy, or an argument from ignorance? The line between the two fallacies seems a bit murky.
My understanding is that if I say it's Zeus because it's the best available answer, that's the abductive fallacy. But if I say it's Zeus because my fellow greeks can't prove that it isn't, that's an argument from ignorance. And if I say it's Zeus because it's the best available explanation and no one can prove that it isn't, I'm commiting both fallacies.
"The best available explanation available could be false."
I feel attacked.
On a serious note, i recently got into an argument with somwone that was, i guess you coukd say arguing backwards? Taking future events into account as evidence of the protagonists objectively poor choices, when the protagonist had no access to reading the future. ...its tangentally related to the best available explanation possibly not being the best one, perhaps even disastrous, but judging one harshly tomorrow for making the best choices of today hardly seems fair or even logical.
I think the difference is "4" has hardly any explanatory power or scope - it's just arbitrary
Baller, shot caller...
I have always thought of evolution theory as an abduction fallacy.
Wouldnt that equally apply to all scientific theories? All of them are the best explanations of the evidence we have.
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 no, begging the question fallacy.
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 Thanks a lot, I am interested in the topic.
😖 You are ignorant and your comment is ridiculous. There is so much verifiable evidence to substantiate the work of Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace and thousands of others since. The use of ‘thought’ in your comment, given what you state, is laughable. Really!
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat bad reply.