7 ms·

In the situations where Münchhausen trilemma is applicable, people tend to use a version of abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or expl

In the situations where Münchhausen trilemma is applicable, people tend to use a version of abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning It's important to keep the Münchhausen trilemma and abductive reasoning in mind when discussion controversial issues where one side feels they have proof and the other side is ignorant or duped. Often the difference is something like whether emergent behavior or a conspiracy feels like a simpler explanation.

Fnoord 8y ago
Seems to be the same principle as Occam's razor [1] or am I missing something? [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- xelxebar 8y ago
  In spirit, yes. However, it gets more interesting if we try to make Occam's Razor more precise with something like Solomonoff induction, then it get's trickier to decide in practice what "simpler" actually means. Even if we're able to reduce our competing models to Turing machine implementations, we're only able to calculate their complexity relative to some defined collection of models, which in turn depends on what kind of low-level logical formalism we're using. In practice, of course, we can't parse out all these formal details for every decision, but I think it's helpful to at least be aware of the inherent problems with naive Occam's Razor.
- paulific 8y ago
  Occam's razor is better thought of as a method of choosing between alternative explanations of the same observed phenomena. It suggests choose the one that requires the least unproved theoretical scaffolding to support it. It is not really "accept the simplest explanation" but more like "do not create complex theories unless they explain the facts better than the simple ones."
pron 8y ago
The validity of abductive/inductive reasoning is itself subject to the trilemma.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  First, inductive reasoning is different than abductive reasoning. Second, the goals of abductive reasoning are different than philosophical or mathematical proof. Often we need to make decisions on incomplete information, and it's a philosophy to help one do so. For example, juries are supposed to make a decision based on a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions would be rare if the standard were incontrovertible truth.
  - pron 8y ago
    Of course, but the whole point of the trilemma is that absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible, not that we cannot axiomatically accept the utility of partial, approximate knowledge. Also, while abductive reasoning is (a bit) different from inductive reasoning, they have the same underlying epistemological justification. In discussions of epistemology you often don't see abductive reasoning mentioned, as it falls under the general framework of inductive reasoning.
    - blueprint 8y ago
      Well if absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible are you able to suggest a truth that could even be considered absolute? If not, bit of dangerous statement, isn't it?
      - pron 8y ago
        That's the trilemma.
        blueprint 8y ago
        Uh, no it's not. You start with a statement then you go about trying to analyze it....? Ok.
DanielBMarkham 8y ago
We should teach abduction and Bayesian reasoning as part of a normal education. Epistemology overall is more of a collegiate/post-grad subject, but we have to provide some kind of foundation in epistemology. Otherwise we end up with a lot of kids who have tied their self-worth to knowing "science", but it's more of a slogan and catch-all phrase than something they can continue to build on. (Aside from the actual practice of whatever scientific field they end up in. Even then, we see in several fields epistemological problems rearing their heads -- and the leading practitioners clueless about what to do about it. Usually re-inventing the wheel in some ad-hoc fashion.)
- Angostura 8y ago
  I've no idea what abduction means in this context, and neither does my dictionary. Can anyone help?
  - letsgetphysITal 8y ago
    Take the facts, and form the simplest theory that explains them. At least that's my take on it in this context.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
jrog 8y ago
Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  > Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. yes, and you'd also end up with an outright ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons, amongst other safety measures. But you don't often see those two together. I think that the axioms are a layer or two below that, and might involve concepts like "individual responsibility" and "greater good"
  - dmreedy 8y ago
    Agreed; it seems likely that the axiom system of the typical pro-life defender[0] is closer to "It's always wrong to end an innocent life"; this requires the inclusion of a set of axioms defining innocence (and thus probably invoking some combination of free will, and an absolute moral axis. A convenient framework for this includes a soul). This way you preserve the ability to defend yourself, to take the life of an enemy soldier, etc, while still being able to justify a pro-life position. It also allows for the death sentence for murderers. --- 0. there are, of course, different sets of axioms that arrive at superficially similar conclusions. For example, the category of pacifist that believes that any loss of life is not justifiable; this kind of person will reject both abortion and ownership of weapons, war, etc.
  - jrog 8y ago
    It could also be that either side of these debates are unknowingly using abductive reasoning for how they feel about a stance that conflicts. Perhaps the proposed axioms come after to explain how people feel about controversial issues. Funny enough, this conversation could also be a form of abductive reasoning. We're inferring that people are using abductive reasoning because people often hold conflicting moral views, though using abductive reasoning wouldn't necessarily guarantee conflicting views.
stcredzero 8y ago
abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. The problem there, is figuring out what "simplest" means. To many people, "God" seems like the simplest explanation for the universe, even though what the word implies is very complex. It's the same phenomenon as people who say, "Scientists can't explain magnets, the liars!" Magnets seem like a magical extra, but it turns out that electromagnetism is a fundamental. It's a rock sitting on a tabletop that's complex and turns out to need explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM
jaclaz 8y ago
Still, Occam's Razor (or lex parsimoniae) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor tends to be a valid approach, generically speaking.

Fnoord 8y ago

Seems to be the same principle as Occam's razor [1] or am I missing something? [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

xelxebar 8y ago
In spirit, yes. However, it gets more interesting if we try to make Occam's Razor more precise with something like Solomonoff induction, then it get's trickier to decide in practice what "simpler" actually means. Even if we're able to reduce our competing models to Turing machine implementations, we're only able to calculate their complexity relative to some defined collection of models, which in turn depends on what kind of low-level logical formalism we're using. In practice, of course, we can't parse out all these formal details for every decision, but I think it's helpful to at least be aware of the inherent problems with naive Occam's Razor.
paulific 8y ago
Occam's razor is better thought of as a method of choosing between alternative explanations of the same observed phenomena. It suggests choose the one that requires the least unproved theoretical scaffolding to support it. It is not really "accept the simplest explanation" but more like "do not create complex theories unless they explain the facts better than the simple ones."

pron 8y ago

The validity of abductive/inductive reasoning is itself subject to the trilemma.

humanrebar 8y ago
First, inductive reasoning is different than abductive reasoning. Second, the goals of abductive reasoning are different than philosophical or mathematical proof. Often we need to make decisions on incomplete information, and it's a philosophy to help one do so. For example, juries are supposed to make a decision based on a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions would be rare if the standard were incontrovertible truth.
- pron 8y ago
  Of course, but the whole point of the trilemma is that absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible, not that we cannot axiomatically accept the utility of partial, approximate knowledge. Also, while abductive reasoning is (a bit) different from inductive reasoning, they have the same underlying epistemological justification. In discussions of epistemology you often don't see abductive reasoning mentioned, as it falls under the general framework of inductive reasoning.
  - blueprint 8y ago
    Well if absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible are you able to suggest a truth that could even be considered absolute? If not, bit of dangerous statement, isn't it?
    - pron 8y ago
      That's the trilemma.
      - blueprint 8y ago
        Uh, no it's not. You start with a statement then you go about trying to analyze it....? Ok.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

We should teach abduction and Bayesian reasoning as part of a normal education. Epistemology overall is more of a collegiate/post-grad subject, but we have to provide some kind of foundation in epistemology. Otherwise we end up with a lot of kids who have tied their self-worth to knowing "science", but it's more of a slogan and catch-all phrase than something they can continue to build on. (Aside from the actual practice of whatever scientific field they end up in. Even then, we see in several fields epistemological problems rearing their heads -- and the leading practitioners clueless about what to do about it. Usually re-inventing the wheel in some ad-hoc fashion.)

Angostura 8y ago
I've no idea what abduction means in this context, and neither does my dictionary. Can anyone help?
- letsgetphysITal 8y ago
  Take the facts, and form the simplest theory that explains them. At least that's my take on it in this context.
- SilasX 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

jrog 8y ago

Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning. Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion. yes, and you'd also end up with an outright ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons, amongst other safety measures. But you don't often see those two together. I think that the axioms are a layer or two below that, and might involve concepts like "individual responsibility" and "greater good"
- dmreedy 8y ago
  Agreed; it seems likely that the axiom system of the typical pro-life defender[0] is closer to "It's always wrong to end an innocent life"; this requires the inclusion of a set of axioms defining innocence (and thus probably invoking some combination of free will, and an absolute moral axis. A convenient framework for this includes a soul). This way you preserve the ability to defend yourself, to take the life of an enemy soldier, etc, while still being able to justify a pro-life position. It also allows for the death sentence for murderers. --- 0. there are, of course, different sets of axioms that arrive at superficially similar conclusions. For example, the category of pacifist that believes that any loss of life is not justifiable; this kind of person will reject both abortion and ownership of weapons, war, etc.
- jrog 8y ago
  It could also be that either side of these debates are unknowingly using abductive reasoning for how they feel about a stance that conflicts. Perhaps the proposed axioms come after to explain how people feel about controversial issues. Funny enough, this conversation could also be a form of abductive reasoning. We're inferring that people are using abductive reasoning because people often hold conflicting moral views, though using abductive reasoning wouldn't necessarily guarantee conflicting views.

stcredzero 8y ago

abductive reasoning, which is finding the simplest narrative or explanation that fits the known facts. The problem there, is figuring out what "simplest" means. To many people, "God" seems like the simplest explanation for the universe, even though what the word implies is very complex. It's the same phenomenon as people who say, "Scientists can't explain magnets, the liars!" Magnets seem like a magical extra, but it turns out that electromagnetism is a fundamental. It's a rock sitting on a tabletop that's complex and turns out to need explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMSaCrcAmM

jaclaz 8y ago

Still, Occam's Razor (or lex parsimoniae) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor tends to be a valid approach, generically speaking.