As psychologists may tell you, calling everyone stupid can be a very revealing sign of... Well, I won't say here, it's more of a patient-doctor confidentialty issue.
Aside from Wikipedia, "The Philosopher's Toolkit" (Baggini), and the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books), both recite the C. S. Peirce popularization of what we call abductive reasoning. That actual philosophers use the term abduction as urbanelf does, certainly bodes well for his position; and makes you look rather pathetic. Contemporary philosophers don't typically use the term 'abduction' in the original Aristotelian sense. A word can have more than one valid meaning, right?
@drchaffee Abduction is NOT the same as the "inference to the best explanation", stupid. theowarner and urbanelf say it is. The fact that you think urbanelf and theowarner (who believed that square circles existed) are good thinkers speaks wonders about you.
@rationalresponseguy What do you suppose your insulting attitudes say about you?
This is a direct quote from the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books): "Scientifically useful abduction is, then, INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION." (Capitalization per the book). It's on page one of this book. Look it up, and check out a self-help book while you are at it.
Also, Craig has stated in many places that the feels that logically deductive arguments do not need bullet-proof premises, they only need to be "more likely than their negation." Which first of all means that he is making SOME concessions to a best explanation logic and secondly really makes me wonder why he doesn't use a type of logical system which captures possibility or likelihood.
@MichaelPayton67 You don't seem to know logic too well. If a premise is true it's necessarily more plausible than it's negation. For instance, it's true that you're a male, and it's more plausible that you are more male than female. This is basic stuff. And you made the same mistake that theo "i believe in the existence of square circles" warner makes.
Craig does contradict himself, it's not obvious, but it is there. He seems to be saying in the first clip that his arguments are "not like" inferences to the best explanation and INSTEAD they are deductive. The thing is, inferences to the best explanation can be put into deductive form.
@MichaelPayton67 In Craig's case, though, inferences to the best explanation ISN'T put in a deductive form. It precedes deductive and inductive arguments.
I also don't entirely understand the argument here. There is certainly a difference between deduction and abduction and Craig seems to consistently use the words interchangeably. But, then again, I don't have a fictional MA in Philosophy of Religion from USC.
@theowarner Maybe he means University of South Carolina. My best friend who taught at the USC(in Los Angeles) department of religion for 3 semesters claims there is no such thing. In fact, my other friend who is getting her PhD at USC says that MAs are generally only awarded at USC as a consolation prize for people who didn't finish their doctorate for whatever reason(e.g., the program wasn't finished because it doesn't exist).
Yeah, "Philosophy of Religion" is usually not taught to a MA level outside public schools. It would be handled as Religious Studies, something like that. Anthropology, maybe. RRG mentioned Dallas Willard, who teaches at USC -- but not in a Philosophy of Religion program, just straight philosophy.
Unfortunately, South Carolina doesn't have a MA in Philosophy of Religion, either.
@theowarner This comment you're now reading doesn't count, Theo, but I'm still working on my RRG comments. I need to find the right video. Any suggestions?
@theowarner Well, you don't have a degree in philosophy, history, or science. And to top it off it took you, gee, nearly a month to figure out that invisible square circles don't exist. Anyway, if you actually watched the video Craig never used the word "abduction". Abduction isn't the same as "the inference to the best explanation." Like a dope, you and urbanelf used wiki to do your research.
Actually, I hate to put it to you this way but I do have a masters degree in science. The science of education. Statistics. Cognition. Speech and language pathology. Diagnostics. Differentials. That kind of thing. Anyway...
I'm not sure how to respond to your comments in the info section because you're basically agreeing with me.
Yes, there is a different between a deductive argument and an inference to the best explanation. In fact, if you watch the whole debate you will see WLC call his arguments explanatory, then inductive, then when the kid asks his question he says they are deductive.
@urbanelf Making an inference to the best explanation precedes inductive and deductive arguments, genius. Please, you need a better education, because it's not doing you any good. By your own admission it proves you know nothing of philosophy. I don't know who's more dumb: you or theo.
If I remember correctly you were making some categorical (and unsuported) statements about cosmology a few months ago and when I asked you if you have any background in physics (which I think is a far more difficult field for autodidacts than philosophy) you gave an evasive impression and linked youtubevideos as evidence. I think you really should not complain about other people who engage in a discussion outside their area of specialisation.
@rationalresponseguy What is your argument? You still haven't made one. If you're saying that abduction precedes deduction, then are you saying that Craig's premises are abductively justified? If that's the case then we are in agreement: Craig made an abductive argument and then dodged the criticism by saying it was deductive and didn't need to explain anything.
@urbanelf My argument is that you're just as stupid as theowarner when it comes to philosophy (the only difference is that you're uglier than he is). Like an idiot, you used wiki to do your research on the inference to the best explanation. Abduction is NOT the same as the inference to the best explanation.
@rationalresponseguy That's not an argument. It's just a statement. Even in trying to make fun of me you haven't expressed an argument. Also, I didn't use wiki. And furthermore, an inference to the best explanation is abduction.
My point still stands. Craig made an abductive argument and hides behind their cosmetically deductive nature to avoid stating exactly what was explained.
You seem to be completely falling apart at this point.
@theowarner *GASP* But I thought you thought I wasn't going to USC to get a Masters, theopoo. Well, I'll tell you this, dipstick. They'll tell me that invisible square circles can't exist.
@rationalresponseguy I can understand your frustration with people, but (and this is assuming that you are a follower of Christ) it is not useful, kind, or Christ-like to insult people you are trying to present truth to, even if they are doing it to you. Christ himself tells us to turn the other cheek. If they are attacking you with insulting or derogatory words, be kind back to them. It is not becoming of a Christ follower to insult others like those of the world do. we are 2 set an example.
You failz on your definitions.
As psychologists may tell you, calling everyone stupid can be a very revealing sign of... Well, I won't say here, it's more of a patient-doctor confidentialty issue.
LuigiPeach 1 year ago
Aside from Wikipedia, "The Philosopher's Toolkit" (Baggini), and the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books), both recite the C. S. Peirce popularization of what we call abductive reasoning. That actual philosophers use the term abduction as urbanelf does, certainly bodes well for his position; and makes you look rather pathetic. Contemporary philosophers don't typically use the term 'abduction' in the original Aristotelian sense. A word can have more than one valid meaning, right?
drchaffee 1 year ago
@drchaffee Abduction is NOT the same as the "inference to the best explanation", stupid. theowarner and urbanelf say it is. The fact that you think urbanelf and theowarner (who believed that square circles existed) are good thinkers speaks wonders about you.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
You have been challenged to offer a definition of abduction. Why don't you simply do it?
mutomeister 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy What do you suppose your insulting attitudes say about you?
This is a direct quote from the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books): "Scientifically useful abduction is, then, INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION." (Capitalization per the book). It's on page one of this book. Look it up, and check out a self-help book while you are at it.
drchaffee 1 year ago
Also, Craig has stated in many places that the feels that logically deductive arguments do not need bullet-proof premises, they only need to be "more likely than their negation." Which first of all means that he is making SOME concessions to a best explanation logic and secondly really makes me wonder why he doesn't use a type of logical system which captures possibility or likelihood.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 You don't seem to know logic too well. If a premise is true it's necessarily more plausible than it's negation. For instance, it's true that you're a male, and it's more plausible that you are more male than female. This is basic stuff. And you made the same mistake that theo "i believe in the existence of square circles" warner makes.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
What does plausible mean to you? Does it mean: "possibly false"?
theowarner 1 year ago
Craig does contradict himself, it's not obvious, but it is there. He seems to be saying in the first clip that his arguments are "not like" inferences to the best explanation and INSTEAD they are deductive. The thing is, inferences to the best explanation can be put into deductive form.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 In Craig's case, though, inferences to the best explanation ISN'T put in a deductive form. It precedes deductive and inductive arguments.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
I also don't entirely understand the argument here. There is certainly a difference between deduction and abduction and Craig seems to consistently use the words interchangeably. But, then again, I don't have a fictional MA in Philosophy of Religion from USC.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Maybe he means University of South Carolina. My best friend who taught at the USC(in Los Angeles) department of religion for 3 semesters claims there is no such thing. In fact, my other friend who is getting her PhD at USC says that MAs are generally only awarded at USC as a consolation prize for people who didn't finish their doctorate for whatever reason(e.g., the program wasn't finished because it doesn't exist).
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
Yeah, "Philosophy of Religion" is usually not taught to a MA level outside public schools. It would be handled as Religious Studies, something like that. Anthropology, maybe. RRG mentioned Dallas Willard, who teaches at USC -- but not in a Philosophy of Religion program, just straight philosophy.
Unfortunately, South Carolina doesn't have a MA in Philosophy of Religion, either.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Well, it's possible he knows Willard from any number of contexts.
Did RRG say he *has* his MA or did he say he *is getting* it?
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
Getting.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner This comment you're now reading doesn't count, Theo, but I'm still working on my RRG comments. I need to find the right video. Any suggestions?
drsuessre14 1 year ago
@drsuessre14
Ha... I don't know. Whatever gets your goat.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Well, you don't have a degree in philosophy, history, or science. And to top it off it took you, gee, nearly a month to figure out that invisible square circles don't exist. Anyway, if you actually watched the video Craig never used the word "abduction". Abduction isn't the same as "the inference to the best explanation." Like a dope, you and urbanelf used wiki to do your research.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
Actually, I hate to put it to you this way but I do have a masters degree in science. The science of education. Statistics. Cognition. Speech and language pathology. Diagnostics. Differentials. That kind of thing. Anyway...
So, what do you think abduction is?
theowarner 1 year ago
I'm not sure how to respond to your comments in the info section because you're basically agreeing with me.
Yes, there is a different between a deductive argument and an inference to the best explanation. In fact, if you watch the whole debate you will see WLC call his arguments explanatory, then inductive, then when the kid asks his question he says they are deductive.
Thanks for the response. Approved!
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Making an inference to the best explanation precedes inductive and deductive arguments, genius. Please, you need a better education, because it's not doing you any good. By your own admission it proves you know nothing of philosophy. I don't know who's more dumb: you or theo.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
I didn't know arguments came in some sort of order. Which one comes first, second, and third?
theowarner 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
If I remember correctly you were making some categorical (and unsuported) statements about cosmology a few months ago and when I asked you if you have any background in physics (which I think is a far more difficult field for autodidacts than philosophy) you gave an evasive impression and linked youtubevideos as evidence. I think you really should not complain about other people who engage in a discussion outside their area of specialisation.
mutomeister 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy What is your argument? You still haven't made one. If you're saying that abduction precedes deduction, then are you saying that Craig's premises are abductively justified? If that's the case then we are in agreement: Craig made an abductive argument and then dodged the criticism by saying it was deductive and didn't need to explain anything.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf My argument is that you're just as stupid as theowarner when it comes to philosophy (the only difference is that you're uglier than he is). Like an idiot, you used wiki to do your research on the inference to the best explanation. Abduction is NOT the same as the inference to the best explanation.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy That's not an argument. It's just a statement. Even in trying to make fun of me you haven't expressed an argument. Also, I didn't use wiki. And furthermore, an inference to the best explanation is abduction.
My point still stands. Craig made an abductive argument and hides behind their cosmetically deductive nature to avoid stating exactly what was explained.
You seem to be completely falling apart at this point.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
I would have said that "inference to the best explanation" is the very definition of abduction. Can you offer another definition?
Maybe you could ask some of professors who teach you at USC?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner *GASP* But I thought you thought I wasn't going to USC to get a Masters, theopoo. Well, I'll tell you this, dipstick. They'll tell me that invisible square circles can't exist.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
I don't think you are getting a masters at USC in the philosophy of religion. But, you claimed that you were. Were you lying?
What is abduction?
Two questions you refuse to answer.
theowarner 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
Immaterial square circles, not invisible. And again, I agree with you.
theowarner 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy So, according to you, an abduction is not an inference to the best explanation. What do you think abduction is?
urbanelf 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy I can understand your frustration with people, but (and this is assuming that you are a follower of Christ) it is not useful, kind, or Christ-like to insult people you are trying to present truth to, even if they are doing it to you. Christ himself tells us to turn the other cheek. If they are attacking you with insulting or derogatory words, be kind back to them. It is not becoming of a Christ follower to insult others like those of the world do. we are 2 set an example.
theantihero420 1 year ago
@theantihero420 Well, you're obviously a moron pretending to be a Christian. When Christ said turn the other cheek it didn't mean they hit it.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago