I'm going to contradict myself: this is my last comment on the topic :).

It has nothing to do with "following [one's] heart", although it is certainly true that following a tricky line of reasoning can be emotionally stimulating.

There are three forms of logical reasoning and each has their place. Deduction is the most useful for solving problems in which all of the information is known and the conclusions must follow from the known information.

a+b=c
c+d=e
ergo a+b+d=e

Induction is useful for solving problems which may not be readily reduced to fundamental components, but for which the probability of certain things being so can be estimated. Bayes' concept of probability is inductive.

a is usually bigger than b
b is usually bigger than c
therefore, a is probably bigger than c (but it might be smaller)

Abduction is the realm of the "quantum leap" and is reliable to the extent that one is able to apply some intuition to the likeliness of some of the inputs, without necessarily being able to prove with any rigour that the intuition is correct. It is also the realm of metaphor.

a seems to be somewhat like z
z+x=b
perhaps c, which is somewhat like b, might result from a and x?

The thing is that it is only with abduction that science or any other branch of knowledge can open new horizons.

Relativity, the Big Bang, Hawking radiation, QM, Maxwell's demon, evolution, Kepler's discovery of the elliptical nature of planetary orbits ("I tried it because I'd tried everything else")...

Each of these great ideas was opposed by people, sometimes very eminent people, who insisted that they were just speculations and therefore not worth the trouble to think about.

I'm not sure of the relevance of your last sentence to the topic. I've certainly never suggested anything of the kind - quite the opposite.

You're obviously interested in the nature of knowledge. The Theory of Knowledge is a vast topic in Philosophy and fascinating.

Hi Craig,

Your last post ? I didn't think so. Then you suggest that

"Evidence-based (deductive) reasoning is not even close to being the only pathway to the truth."

You could be onto something. Evidence ? Feh ! Passion ? Yes, getting warmer. Top of the head, light-bulb moments ? Yes, sounds good. Evidence-free pontifications ? Yes - beauty !

Perhaps you're right that the wisest people are those young bucks with a skinful at the local's front bar, ideally just before they go outside and spew over somebody's car. They're so full of simple conviction, surely that must stand for something.

Evidence is so hard, after all. So much tedious effort, maybe years and phucking years of it, with the added risk that, in the search, one may come across counter-evidence that stuffs up all of one's Nobel-Prize-winning hypotheses.

I recall an acquaintance, at the conclusion of her four-year stint at a Ph.D., when I asked her, had she stumbled across anything which in any way conflicted with her research topic: "Nope," she replied confidently. I thought, "Sister, you've learnt nothing in four years".

So no wonder that any researchers, such as yourself, confidently learn nothing but confirming what they started out with, except a flurry of name-dropping.

Evidence is all there is.

Joe

Joe, with the greatest of respect, you're talking through the bit you should be sitting on.

Or at least, that's my hypothesis based on the limited evidence available.

Still, if I were you I'd stop it, just in case.

Hi Craig,

I asked the bit I'm sitting on and it told me nothing new, but suggested I might ask you for deep wisdom, conjured out of your own pure wind and solid substances. I demurred, since I'm stuck on the out-dated notion that one need some evidence, some substance, some solid foundation, before one puts forward anything like a new idea.

For instance, it struck me today, after years of gestation, that in Australia, with its frequent and long droughts, that in pre-European times, populations must have been decimated, with children under four or five dying through lack of any mother's milk, and old people, especially women, dying pretty quickly too, maybe the old men as well. The current drought in Queensland covers around a million square kilometres: how would that have affected Aboriginal groups in pre-European times ? They would have been nearly wiped out: neighbouring groups, once the drought broke, might have moved into their country, devised new stories and, within a generation of less, seen themselves as the 50,000-year-old inheritors of that country.

How would I demonstrate this crack-pot idea, even to myself ? Reading over old records, journals, diaries, maybe. But how to understand pre-European situations ?

The major, confounding, problem is that, at least here in SA, the Protector set up a system of ration depots very quickly (devilishly cunning !) so that old people, mothers with young children, the infirm , orphans, etc. across the Province, had an assured supply of food. Even in droughts, when the able-bodied were supplied as well. What impact might that have had on Aboriginal demography ? I hesitate to suggest. With that assured food supply, what impact might a ten-year drought have had on cultural continuity, compared to pre-European drought times ? Too horrifying to think of, as oneof the Left.

Genuine research is very difficult, especially in dealing with the problem of screening out confounding factors. But how can I flap my lips with confidence unless I have some evidence ? Stance, yes; passion, yes; but I have this nagging suspicion that I need

evidence.

Joe

I'm glad you and your sitting bits are on talking terms, Joe.

Evidence is unquestionably essential for disproving an hypothesis, but that is all it can do.

Popper was a metaphysicist: he was interested in the nature of reality and he was always acutely aware that the theory of knowledge acquisition he proposed was incomplete.

The missing link is abduction: what Feynmann called a "guess".

1. Notice something that can't be explained
2. Guess an explanation
3. Propose a mechanism that might fit the explanation
4. Test it for contradictions against what is already known
5. If it passes, test it for its predictive ability
6. If it passes, you have a theory, congratulations
7. If it doesn't, you still have a guess that may be useful in thinking about the problem.

Abduction is currently a seriously tough problem that sets people apart from machines. Some really interesting approaches are being taken to solve it, but until we have machines capable of making that guess with little information to guide them, we won't have AI.

I mentioned that it is also involved in metaphor. Do a search on General Semantics if you'd like to know some more (and of course, if your sitting bits don't object).

Hi Craig,

Yes, my sitting bits are my best friend, sometimes they allow me to talk for them.

Yes, Popper showed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that any hypothesis may be valid, because it is always open to falsification, BUT we have to go with something, and that, in part, is whatever hypotheses have not yet been falsified.

After all, there is something 'out there', an objective reality that we are always striving to, but never will, grasp totally. That's life. But we can get close to it: not all crackpot notions are equal, one could say. And one major component towards that distant understanding has to involve 'evidence', something which can be pulled apart and held up to the light, something which might 'answer' until it is conclusively demolished and replaced with a better explanation. But that also requires 'evidence', if you like, 'better' evidence.

The bottom line is that SOME evidence is better than none, and that relatively (I hate that word) thorough evidence is better than mere stance, or hearsay, or rumour, or sheer bigotry.

For example, the 'Stolen Generation': how many confirmed cases ? One. And that was pretty iffy, if you look at the details. If I had been Marj Angus, the social worker in that case in 1958, I would probably have whipped that dying baby off to Adelaide Hospital and fabricated a story so that he could be fostered out once he recovered.

One case, yet we have had Apologies and buckets of tears over them. I didn't know the bloke involved, Bruce Trevorrow, but I knew his brothers and his mum, and his mum's boyfriend. In fact, it was through the actions of the boyfriend that I met my wife.

But that's another story.

Joe