How can you determine whether or not reasoning is valuable when you have to rely on the conventions of reasoning to come up with a reason to value it? If you need reason to understand why you need reason, that is an example of a circular argument. If a circular argument is a conventionally accepted way to determine a bad form of reasoning, but the evaluation of reasoning itself rests on a circular argument, then how can we trust reasoning at all? — MonfortS26
A full account of reasoning is three staged. First comes abduction or "a productive guess". Then comes the deduction needed to shape the guess into the formal hierarchical structure of a theory. Then comes the inductive confirmation - the acts of measurement which feed back to tell us the "truth" of the theory and its grounding assumptions. — apokrisis
Isn't that just the foundation of the scientific method though? — MonfortS26
How can you determine whether or not reasoning is valuable when you have to rely on the conventions of reasoning to come up with a reason to value it? — MonfortS26
Reasoning is entirely self-congratulatory and had no meaning or validity beyond that. — Rich
This is the point made by CS Peirce, the guy who invented the philosophy of pragmatism. Reasoning - when considered in its full sense - is this three stage process of abduction, deduction and induction. That is, hypothesis, theory and test. — apokrisis
Now philosophy seems to split off deduction. — apokrisis
If course you are correct. Reasoning is entirely self-congratulatory and had no meaning or validity beyond that. — Rich
People just think in different ways. Some just prefer to think that they think better. It is a hierarchical thing without substance. I'm amused when those of deepest faith and dogma claim to be using reason for their own reasons. — Rich
Everyone is evolving in their own way. For some reason, using reasoning, some people just absolutely insist on some artificial hierarchy. It's part of some people's way of seeing things. — Rich
How can you determine whether or not reasoning is valuable when you have to rely on the conventions of reasoning to come up with a reason to value it? If you need reason to understand why you need reason, that is an example of a circular argument. If a circular argument is a conventionally accepted way to determine a bad form of reasoning, but the evaluation of reasoning itself rests on a circular argument, then how can we trust reasoning at all? — MonfortS26
So do the 3 different forms of reasoning have individual value, or are they dependant on eachother? — MonfortS26
What do you mean when you say philosophy splits off deduction? Didn't Aristotle create deductive reasoning before the scientific method? Is there a way to map out different "degrees of rigor" where science isn't applicable? — MonfortS26
Deductions are one of two species of argument recognized by Aristotle. The other species is induction (epagôgê). He has far less to say about this than deduction, doing little more than characterize it as “argument from the particular to the universal”. However, induction (or something very much like it) plays a crucial role in the theory of scientific knowledge in the Posterior Analytics: it is induction, or at any rate a cognitive process that moves from particulars to their generalizations, that is the basis of knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of sciences.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
I'm not claiming there is a hard line between any of these reasoning domains. I'm saying they are all useful variations on the one theme. — apokrisis
Where does pseudoscience fit into all of that? If there isn't a hard distinction between those 3 subjects, can we expect there to be a hard distinction between good and bad science? — MonfortS26
Lol. The gift of hubris. — Rich
Good philosophical argument involves being able to call forth particular examples that go to the generalities being claimed. — apokrisis
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.