View Single Post
Old 15th December 2015, 10:09 AM   #2038
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,945
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Inferences may be useful...
Inferences are required in logic. Deductive inferences are deductively strong, which means they are guaranteed to express truth in a syllogism of validating form, based on true premises. Inductive inferences become stronger the narrower the inductive gap is. But direct observation of the veracity of the consequent makes the inductive gap irrelevant, because it makes induction irrelevant.

When I say observation trumps inference, I mean that observation renders inductive reasoning moot.

Quote:
[N]one of your speculations about invisible, near invisible, or otherwise undetected and undocumented repairs are based on anything beyond your fervent desire to discount the carbon dating. They are not evidence.
They're not even really inference. They're pretty much just pure conjecture. "I see this and I speculate that this cause produced them." If that speculation were based in any way upon fact or defensible chains of causation, that would be worth paying attention to. That would be an inference worth exploring. But when it's just pure, circular attribution then it has no value whatsoever. The inductive gap in such a situation is infinitely wide.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top