Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Boyd's argument therefore uses abduction to establish a reliability claim that abduction's own track record in science actively undermines.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Failed past abductions don't undermine current abductions; science improved methodology to filter bad inferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abduction's track record overall supports reliability: most accepted scientific theories emerged via abduction and endured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using our best available inference method to evaluate inference methods is rational, not viciously circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Abduction has produced false theories (phlogiston, ether, miasma) despite seeming empirically justified at the time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using abduction to defend abduction's reliability commits circular reasoning in the face of counterexamples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical track records of inference methods constrain what we can legitimately claim about their future reliability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.