Is the argument that abduction can be used to pick out which theories are conspiracy theories? Then what counts as a conspiracy theory is which "conclusions are more reasonable than others"; but a conspiracy theorist may just insist that the conspiracy is the more reasonable conclusion.My point is that: 1) we can draw some conclusions based on the information that IS available; 2) some conclusions are more reasonable than others; 3) (obviously) it's contingent upon the information being correct. — Relativist
"Why" questions presume intent, in some aspect, and so all that goes with intentionality. — Banno
That'd be more a "how" than a "why" - how the avalanche started rather than why.As in the rock intended to start the avalanche that happened by intending to pursue gravitational paths of less resistance down the mountain just so? — javra
Yep.Why questions all presuppose purpose — javra
Reconsidering, "Why did the leaves flutter - because the wind blew them" presumes neither intent nor purpose. Fair point.The reason why leaves flutter is not because the wind so wills it. Lest we loose track of what are poetic truths and what is objectively real. — javra
I gave my family member's reasoning, and mind. Don't you agree mine is more reasonable? — Relativist
Hence Melina Tsapos' conspiracy definition dilemma. — Banno
That'd be more a "how" than a "why". — Banno
Why questions all presuppose purpose — javra
Yep. — Banno
Saying that causes are unreal would be a misrepresentation. — Banno
That'd be more a "how" than a "why". — Banno
Given your rudeness and ridicule, why should I respond to your posts? Your worldview strikes me as sophistic bullshit. — Banno
I can live with this. Can you? — javra
Yep. — Banno
See the musings added to the previous post. You've got me rethinking my reply to Un.
Is there a problem? — Banno
Do we end with "Becasue godswill" or perhaps "Becasue triadic thingumies"? — Banno
Almost nothing in life is provably true, but we can still weigh facts and evidence - and strive to do this as reasonably as possible- that is all abduction is. — Relativist
Me, too. It's intended to show how the "why" doesn't end satisfactorily in at least some cases.I have a problem with this part: — javra
No. Rather, abduction would tend to rule out theories that are commonly called conspiracy theories, but it's irrelevant whether they've been labelled as that.Is the argument that abduction can be used to pick out which theories are conspiracy theories? — Banno
You can lead a horse to water....a conspiracy theorist may just insist that the conspiracy is the more reasonable conclusion. — Banno
Suppose you can't find your car keys, one morning. What possibly happened to them? Did it fall into an interdimensional portal; did a poltergeist hide them? Did a monkey come through an unlocked window and take them? Was there a glitch in the matrix? The possibilities are endless. But only a few are truly worth consideration, like - maybe you. left them in the pants you were wearing, you dropped them, left them on the kitchen table, or in the car.But again, if nothing is certain—even conceptually—then you can't weigh anything as more or less certain. — Leontiskos
If someone's theory is bad, then you should say why it is bad in a way that would be convincing even to them. — Leontiskos
Agreed.if you have a number of different explanatory kinds in your belt, and one of them is IBE, then labeling one of your explanations an IBE is intelligible vis-a-vis the differentiation it provides. — Leontiskos
Or riffing on my parasitic idea from earlier, you can't talk about an "inference to the best explanation" if you aren't able to tell us what an explanation is. — Leontiskos
There are a number of folk on this forum who reject all substantive approaches to causality and explanation, substitute in their term "inference to the best explanation," and think they have won the day. But this is a rather confused move. If there are no real explanations, can there really be any best explanations? If I don't have even a conceptual understanding of what counts as an explanation, then how am I to know how to identify better or lesser explanations? — Leontiskos
As in the rock intended to start the avalanche that happened by intending to pursue gravitational paths of less resistance down the mountain just so?
That would make a rather extreme animist of you. Not even the spiritualists I've encountered hold such views. — javra
I gave my family member's reasoning, and mind. Don't you agree mine is more reasonable?
— Relativist
Of course. — apokrisis
I don't have an "anti-conspiratorial stance". Conspiracies certainly occur. However, large scale conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people, particularly over many years, with 100% adherence to maintaining the fiction is implausible. Faking the moon landing would require this. A "false flag" operation by the US government in taking down the WTC on 9/11 would require this. It's an inherent implausibility in many conspiracy theories. Real conspiracies are apt to be exposed when very many are involved- some will screw up; some may have second thoughts.In the modern world, is your anti-conspiratorial stance still the legitimate thing? Can the truth even be secured without accepting a dash of conspiratorial doubt given the fact that even the well intentioned have reason to gloss over or edit the facts as they might exist. — apokrisis
Absolutely! That's exactly what I'm talking about.Anything is possible. So the burden shifts to what - by logical constraint - remains credible.
We can pretend life is a science project or learn to assess situations in more pragmatic fashion. A skill becoming more necessary everyday it seems. — apokrisis
Absolutely: we have an abundance of easily accessible information. In a perfect world, everyone would apply good epistemic judgement when trying to make sense of the information. In our imperfect world, we can at least strive to do this ourselves. This means trying to avoid being overly influenced by our biases (as in the case of my sister-in-law); it means valuing evidence over pure conjecture; it means considering the plausibility of claims; it means being willing to reevaluate our assumptions instead of tenaciously rationalizing our initial reactions. We can also attempt to persuade and to discuss the need for good epistemic judgement, but we also should be open to being persuaded by good reasoning.But again my point is how even for conspiracy theories, it cuts both ways. We are in a new media era where there is vastly more individual capacity to data mine and fact check. We can find out what is real about public events to a degree that we couldn’t before. That should be a good thing. And couple that power to a general rationality - an ability to step back with a world view that asks, well what are the odds - then conspiracy thinking could morph into something valuable. Producing needed social change. — apokrisis
I don't know much about her, so I checked Wikipedia. Apparently she promotes a variety of conspiracy theories. From this, I infer she has poor epistemic judgement, and thus I would'nt gain much but listening to her. It would be foolish for anyone to uncritically accept the claims of anyone with that track record.I’m not giving Candace Owen high marks as yet. — apokrisis
In answer to the question: we could dispense with using the term "conspiracy theory" entirely, and simply apply good epistemic judgement to any theory that comes along. Let's consider some factors that affect this judgement.The criticism I began with is that if you set out those criteria, if you set out your expectations for a good hypothesis, then what you are in effect doing is choosing only the hypotheses that meet those expectations; I somewhat hyperbolically called that "confirmation bias" - you get what you want, an so perhaps not what you need.
On this approach, is any theory that does not meet one's expectations a conspiracy theory? Seems to be so, unless there is some additional criteria. — Banno
His case studies do not entail choosing a best theory. I'll interject Kuhn's "scientific revolutions" concept - these entail a sort of selecting of a better theory. It's a process that is gradual and collective, not an individual sitting down and juxtaposing the respective theories and applying some rules, but the process has the same net effect.Feyerabend,...His argument gets a bit deeper than that, but there's a start, since this is counter to the naive view of abductuion as choosing the best theory. — Banno
I agree, and that's why I'm referring to them as "epistemic judgements". It would be unwarranted to claim a judgement made through abduction constitutes knowledge, in the strictest sense, or that it entails necessity. Even more so than the lip-service we give to the epistemic status of scientific theories: they can only be warranted as provisional. The "best" in "inference to best explanation" isn't an absolute claim that there can be no better explanation. It's simply a judgement that the selected hypothesis is best, among the options considered.Now some care is needed here. We agree that we do "make judgements based on data too sparse to draw a deductive conclusion". what I am baulking at is calling these judgements "abduction", if what is meant is that they are correct, or true, or worse, necessary. — Banno
Yep. Another resonating point. Especially as before Trump was on The Apprentice, he was part of WWE. — apokrisis
I used to like old school boxing but find modern MMA unwatchable. One claimed to showcase the skill, the other only the brutality. — apokrisis
I completely agree. That is why I focus on Candace Owens as a particular case in point. The medium is evolving fast. It is too easy to dismiss it for its history on the fringes and its WWE levels of believability. — apokrisis
My suggestion is that the media may evolve but it always becomes what power must capture and control. And that exists in tension with the power of the people to resist. — apokrisis
So the printing press at first liberated people power - taking back the written world from the social elite. Then it became the tool of class factions and eventually the liberal order, such as it was.
How is the internet likely to fare in that regard? How do things go as even social media crashes into the new AI paradigm. — apokrisis
That is why I now toy with AI as the instant fact checker on PF opinion. — apokrisis
Then appreciate how this relates to what I'm saying about IBEs. My explanation is "better". — Relativist
But again, if nothing is certain—even conceptually—then you can't weigh anything as more or less certain. — Leontiskos
Suppose you can't find your car keys, one morning... — Relativist
If someone's theory is bad, then you should say why it is bad in a way that would be convincing even to them. — Leontiskos
That assumes the other person is reasonable. — Relativist
if you have a number of different explanatory kinds in your belt, and one of them is IBE, then labeling one of your explanations an IBE is intelligible vis-a-vis the differentiation it provides. — Leontiskos
Agreed. — Relativist
Or riffing on my parasitic idea from earlier, you can't talk about an "inference to the best explanation" if you aren't able to tell us what an explanation is. — Leontiskos
In this context, an explanation is a conclusion someone is drawing from some set of evidence and background facts. — Relativist
For example: is there a "best" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? IMO, no- because they are all consistent with the measurements- there's no objective basis to choose one, so I think we should reserve judgement. — Relativist
We often don't have multiple, distinct "explanations" to choose from; we're just assessing whether or not there's sufficient justification to support an assertion. We examine this justification and decide whether to affirm it, deny it, or reserve judgement. It's the same process, whether or not we choose to label it abduction. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.