Abduction
Abductive reasoning is neither deductive nor inductive. It is most clearly illustrated by the nature of troubleshooting a problem, say a disease, or an electronic failure inside a computer. The conclusion is known. The cause is not known, but is inferred by the artificial creation of a “probable” series of events that, taken together as if they had occurred, could have produced such a result.
As can be seen, this would have considerable value in a trouble shooting situation, where a certain failure symptom can be known to be created by one of several possible previous chains of events. It might not be known which chain; but the narrowing of the unknowns to just a few chains of events is helpful in eliminating considerable effort by a technician. Such Abductive trouble shooting procedures are contained in many owners manuals that come with new products.
The same with medical trouble shooting, where certain disease symptoms are narrowed to a few possible chains of events or causes, by inferring causal properties based upon the final issue, the disease.
But how does Abductive logic fare in the determination of forensic and historical issues? What degree of accuracy and validation is to be expected?
In forensic analysis, much of the accuracy is obtained by the comparison of a questioned item to another item (or process) of a similar character. For example, the age of a log cabin can be accurately determined by the annular rings in the logs, by comparing them with comparable logs of known age, and counting the rings from the death of the cabin log, to the present time on the known log. The rings will show growth patterns that give era characteristics, such as wet years and dry years, allowing alignment of the two logs at the same time on the scale.
Such a forensic analysis is both common and acknowledged to be valid.
A Situation (*1)
However, what of the following type of analysis, where no calibrated time scale is available? (This is an actual situation). A type of dinosaur remain is being sought along the bottom lands adjoining “ancient river flows” that still flow in the proximity. The group of analysts is brought to areas where the rock is the consistency of sand, being able to be brushed away without aid of any chipping, gouging or digging. When nests are found, the dinosaur eggs also can be brushed away without aid of chipping, gouging or digging. They are so fragile in fact that care must be taken not to destroy them with the soft brushes.
The senior analyst for the expedition insists that a) the rock is very hard because it is very old, 65 million years. Because the rock is 65 million years old, the dinosaur eggs must be fossilized, and also be very hard.
A Conclusion in Advance
Now in this case, the conclusion was determined well before any actual data was taken. The data to be taken did not include how hard either the rock or the eggs must be – they were assumed hard because the age was previously set.
The Embarrassment
So we now arrive at the embarrassing part. DNA was also found within the eggs that were supposedly fossilized. Still, the pre-established conclusion that the rocks and eggs were 55 mya was considered inviolable. No amount of valid information could derail the presupposition. Finally the condition of the rock and eggs was called a “new type of fossilization”. The results were withheld for a period of time, then released to publication in the journal, “Science”. (*2)
The Failure of Abduction
The failure of this actual piece of scientific absurdity is couched in the Abductive reasoning that was applied to the rock before the expedition. This type of reasoning includes building a story to support the desired conclusion, and then to give more credence to the story than to the subsequent data that contradicted the story. Why would this happen? Certain fields of endeavor now have the firm belief that the established central story (meta-theory) is the foundation for rationality in the endeavor. Specifically, biology, at least paleobiology, requires that evolution be more than a theory – it must be True - in order for the observations of paleontologists to make sense. It is a requirement pure and simple. So any non-congruent input will not be allowed.
Abduction as a Fallacy
Abduction is so similar to Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc as a fallacy of story telling, that it is difficult to separate a valid use of Abduction from a non-valid use. The difference is in the premises used within the story itself. In troubleshooting, the premises that are used to generate an inference of the cause are all true and valid premises.
In the Fallacy form of Abduction, the premises are fantasized, based on the desire for a chain of events to be true, regardless of the actuality. Fantasized premises are also the stuff of Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and “Just So Stories”, both of which are easy to rout.
Abduction and Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin was the master Abductionist. His entire work was based on stories of adaptations and engineered breedings that seemed to him to be the same quality of evidence as that which is required for rational attainment of logical conclusions. It is still the case that paleobiology uses Abduction as justification for its extrapolated conclusions. Darwin built volumes of stories to support his theory. Biology still builds stories – but more sophisticated jargon based on the instantiation of DNA as a supporting truss. Such stories devolve to premises that are not, and likely cannot ever be, verified by any manner other than sub-stories and sub-sub-stories, in an infinite regression. Such a regression, not being based upon valid premises, necessarily cannot be halted at the baseline foundation of the First Principles.
The structure of a “science” based on layer after layer of fabricated stories is terrifyingly weak. Yet the structure persists, and so far is propped up against rupture by a seemingly never-ending supply of stories.
Abduction as the Basis for a “Science”
The historical and forensic sciences are vulnerable to the desire to build a case to support an observation. Historical and forensic endeavors cannot engage empirical verifications for their work. The observations are not necessarily repeatable or verifiable in any sense other that of a single instantiation: “an instance of (R) has been found”. The logically illegal extrapolation from the instantiation observation is (1) to create a story that imbues unobserved characteristics upon the observation; (2) to create a story that imbues unverifiable relationships between this instantiation and other instantiations; (3) to create a story that implies a coherence to a meta-theory that, in and of itself, is not verifiable.
What are we to say of specific science venues that proceed in the such a fashion? Where entire realms of endeavor are based on at least one of the Abduction Fallacies stated above? It can’t be too much to call it questionable. And it also can’t be too much to call it intellectually dishonest.
It certainly cannot be called truth. And it should not be called science.
Sources:
(*1) “We Dug Dinos”, part I & II; www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i12f.htm
(*2) Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, Jan K. Toporski, Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 25 March 2005, 1952-1955, “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”
4 comments:
Thoughts on Abduction
In the set up, one of the conditions is “where no calibrated time scale is available …” If in fact a scientist attempted to reach a conclusion on the provenance of the eggs (and DNA) without this critical controlling factor, the analysis would also be flawed under current legal theories dealing with expert evidence. Under the seminal case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court set in motion a series of cases which now include principles that the scientific theory must be generally accepted (most times, peer reviewed), and that the abstract theory must be tied to the evidence in the case at hand. There must be a logical (here, “persuasive”) connection between the scientific theory, the expert's local reconstruction of what happened, and the evidence itself. Depending on the nature of the case and the disposition of the court, the size of the “gap” between theory and evidence must be small, or even non-existent. Also, the expert may not announce a conclusion by his or her own statement, or “ipse dixit.”
Back to the set up as presented. If there is no time calibration, then the eggs and DNA are mere bits of evidence, which, without more, cannot be tied into existing theory. Also, at this point, the issues raised by Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970) and Ernst Cassirer, The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History Since Hegel (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1950) must be considered. Science advances, by definition, based on paradigms against which new evidence is tested and assimilated. However, at certain points in scientific history the paradigm breaks down, or is exceeded, at which point a new paradigm must be used, which, by general consensus, must also incorporate and explain the now superseded paradigm. Perhaps the error here is ruling out in advance the possibility that the evidence is so inconsistent with the paradigm (Neo-Darwinian Theory — with a capital “T”) that the paradigm must be examined and restructured.
On a broader note, the inability of received theory to accommodate data becomes especially troublesome in meta-narrative analysis relating to origins of “us.” Many times this manifests itself in the acceptance by the speaker of certain presuppositions, with the abandonment of those same presuppositions when they lead to absurd or undesired results.
Using the “quick and dirty” look up of Wikipedia, it also appears that the current use of the abduction process had been post-modernized. Here is an extract from the article “Abductive reasoning,” found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning, (November 25, 2007):
The philosopher Charles Peirce introduced abduction into modern logic. In his works before 1900, he mostly uses the term to mean the use of a known rule to explain an observation, e.g., “if it rains the grass is wet” is a known rule used to explain that the grass is wet. In other words, it would be more technically correct to say, "If the grass is wet, the most probable explanation is that it recently rained."
He later used the term to mean creating new rules to explain new observations, emphasizing that abduction is the only logical process that actually creates anything new. Namely, he described the process of science as a combination of abduction, deduction and implication, stressing that new knowledge is only created by abduction.
This is contrary to the common use of abduction in the social sciences and in artificial intelligence, where the old meaning is used. Contrary to this use, Peirce stated that the actual process of generating a new rule is not “hampered” by logic rules. Rather, he pointed out that humans have an innate ability to infer correctly; possessing this ability is explained by the evolutionary advantage it gives. Peirce's second use of 'abduction' is most similar to induction.
As used by Peirce, abduction would seem to have few inherent limits, and can be invoked to generate a new rule, for good, or less than good, reasons. Charles Peirce is a darling of postmodern studies due to his theory of signs (semiotics), the idea that reasoning (logic) involves a never ending process that does not reach a final state of truth. “Postmodern times began in philosophy with Peirce’s doctrine of categories.” John Deely, “The Beginning of Postmodern Times, Or: Charles Sanders Peirce and the Recovery of Signum” (Text prepared for The Metaphysical Club of the University of Helsinki: November 2, 2000), 4.
Without going to the extreme of David Hume and denying all causality, abduction also seems to improperly allow the argument that sequentiality is a sign of cause and effect, but with the added bonus of being able to posit the cause, and then create a sequentiality after the fact. Or, in other words, using one “fact,” the antecedent and causal connection are then inferred. My life as a lawyer would be a lot easier if I could use such a technique to create admissible evidence.
Frederick, I particularly like your statement about creating a sequentiality after the fact. That sounds like the definition of a lie. The irritating part is that although I never got away with that as a kid, it is actually an expectation of paleobiology and anything to do with evolution. And all instances of abduction are publishable with rewards for the abductors. Seems to me that life is much easier for abductors than for empiricists.
On the Strange Case of Evolution in Current Polemic
12/02/07, 12/16/07 rev.
There is a great divide in America occasioned by what purports to be a tenet of science, brought forth in 1859 by Darwin. Ironically, the then contemporary scientific community raised objections, based on science itself (per Ernst Cassirer, The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History Since Hegel (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1950)). The scientific (apart from theological) debate, among the scientists, is now shrouded by the mists of time (or better, to extend the metaphor, hazy thought). Instead, some adhere to the now "Neo" Darwin, as a matter of faith, which faith cannot be challenged, even from a basis of scientific inquiry, while others, in a frenzy, launch lawsuits, diatribes, politicians, and arguments against Evolution, for purposes which appear to be less concerned with God than with political advantage. In one sense, we are faced with competing doctrines of hate, each aimed, not at error, but the "other" camp. — The debate is sterile.
Darwin, inter alia, has thus set in motion this strife through which we muddle. However, beneath the claims and counterclaims, we are faced with real issues and concerns, which go unaddressed in the current debate, at least directly. Meanwhile the cries of our hearts go unanswered.
First, the errors. Strict evolutionary theory cannot withstand scientific and philosophical scrutiny, if the inquiry is directed at the correct starting point. Under evolution, what are the ultimate principles? Aside from the presuppositions necessary to conduct this discourse, some form of Atomism, supported by principles, laws, or rules of physics, grounds all that we see. The physics merely exists, not even by necessity (ananke). Furthermore, there is no necessity that the prior to primal event “condition” destabilize and break, resulting in the universe. It just so happens (the argument goes) that the statistically unlikely event occurred, and physics mechanically controls the development of now existent matter. Statistical improbability does not prove that evolution is wrong or that God exists, but it does shed light on whether a proposed system is tenable.
The math would suggest that the rules of physics preceded the primal event, though not in a Platonic sense of a Form or Idea. In this sense, the math now just expresses that which always existed, and is not itself a creation of the mind. Or, in other words, protons and electrons behave the same even if no formulas about their behavior are ever written down. The debate over the fundamental nature of math (see Morris Kline, Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), is yet another side issue which merely demonstrates how deep the assumptions are that underly evolution by the time it is defended at the surface level of argument.
The math also seems to require the formation of sub-atomic particles, themselves behaving in acausal patterns, but causally at larger scales and in the aggregate. Under rules of physics, all systems come into being, the systems determined by rules which are invariant, but also contain that which is in normal parlance called chance, with their own formulas. For us, composed of particles driven by physics, our self-awareness, consciousness, sentience, must be the result of bouncing atoms (Titus Lucretius Carus, On the Nature of Things (London, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1950)) or bouncing sub-atomic particles (Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1995)). Question: how is that the physics gives sufficient organization to matter this it is able to determine its own origin? It “must” be that Matter, like Calvin, was predetermined to discover it was predetermined. No one really believes this, at least in practice, with each author, regardless of stridency, privileging their own stance outside the deterministic system.
The Atomist argument is flawed (even the clinamen or “swerve” is mythical, inserted to salvage us from meaninglessness). Yet such flaw does not prove God, the claims of Jesus, our sin or the necessity (dei) of being rescued from the future, eternal judgment. The fact that there is anything at all, and more significantly, that we are aware of Being, supports the existence of a creator god. However, even this position belongs to faith (Hebrews 11.1). Polemics, no matter how well intentioned, cannot rise higher than the Word. Reason does not establish grounded Truth beyond what is revealed, but only in light of what is revealed.
Current hard edged science suggests the primal event and following space and time is one way, ending up, after a really long time, as a smoothed out expanse of cold particles. The time line is far beyond any reasonable expectation of survival of homo sapiens, in light of earth geological history, if nothing else. Yet, wonder of wonders, the one way evidence creates problems in some scientists. Hawkins has created a meta-cyclical theory (Brief History of Time) to avoid the one way evidence (unprovable, driven by … faith?). Multi-verses, not strictly prohibited by all current math, are grasped, hoping to salvage what? — freedom, dignity, a better night’s sleep (see, for example, Ben Goertzel, “The Virtual Multiverse Theory of Free Will,” Dynamical Psychology: An International, Interdisciplinary Journal of Complex Mental Processes (February 18, 2004), http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/FreeWill.htm (December 16, 2007).
To point out the flaws of Scientism is valid and, from the Christian position, necessary. That necessity doe not justify adopting the same flailing and disjointed arguments of the enemies of God. We rejoice when the DSS are carbon dated to 3rd Century BC[E]. When the same physics shows Jericho occupied at 8000 BC, contra Ussher (for quick bio see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher), we reject the science. God of course can always change the laws of physics “mid-stream” since they exist only because He Said So (Psalms 33.6). But if he has done so, there is no need to argue scientific principles against Darwin, since the rules are not consistent enough to disprove Darwin. Darwin may still fail, but from flaws in (consistent) scientific analysis and underlying philosophical issues.
To merely confute the Atomists only leads to the theology of demons: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” James 2.19. Demons know who Jesus is. Mark 1.34, Acts 19.15. Demons confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Mark 5.7, Matthew 8.29. Demons know that they will be judged. Matthew 8.29. Demons believe more than the atheist, Psalms 14.1, 53.1, who is without excuse, Romans 1.18–20. Demons have “correct" theology, but mere acknowledgment or belief (assensus) does them no good.
Yet, finally, to be an Atheist is to be a fool. The Demons know better.
Hi,
This is an old post so I hope you see this comment. I don't quite get the difference between induction and abduction. I thought that induction was the inference to the best explanation. Isn't this the same thing as abduction? Well, I know there's a difference, but I don't quite get what it is. Also, would the fine-tuning argument be a inductive or abductive argument?
BC
Post a Comment