Ben, List, Thanks for this clarification. You wrote: Researchers need to be able to state that a hypothesis has been ruled out in plain enough words to keep communication clear because the scientific method is the inquiry method that, by its own account, can go wrong as well as right. They don't always say "shown to be false," they'll say "ruled out" or "disconfirmed" or "disfavored" or the like.
I suppose the language of "ruled out" or "disconfirmed" seems sounder to me than "false;" but perhaps it amounts to the same thing. But aren't there some hypotheses which, while not fully borne out when tested, yet give information which is, for example, "statistically significant" in adding to the understanding of the question being inquired into such that that the direction of further inquiry may be informed by that, shall we say, incomplete (although not strictly 'false') result? This seems to me to happen, for example, in the social sciences (and other 'soft' sciences). Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., list, > > "Good" is traditionally taken as meaning "valid" or "justified" when > applied to an inference. Valid deductions can conclude in falsehoods by > vice of falsehood among the premisses, and we can see both critical and > methodeutical kinds of justification of an abductive inference that can > nevertheless turn out, upon testing, to conclude in a falsehood, e.g., the > hypothesis of a detectable ether wind in the theoretical effort to save the > Galilean transformations; the disconfirmation of the ether wind led > eventually to the triumph of the Lorentz transformations, amid which the > Galilean transformations survive as an approximation for things moving > slowly in one's reference frame, and it led to the quantitative unification > of time and space (with lightspeed as yardstick, e.g., years and > light-years), which simply isn't there in the Galilean and > (unreconstructed) Newtonian pictures; in any case the hypothesis of an > ether wind is quite dead, but it was critically and methodeutically > justified as far as it went; it was plausible, distinctive predictions were > deducible from it, and indeed its adoption bore fruit. Researchers need to > be able to state that a hypothesis has been ruled out in plain enough words > to keep communication clear because the scientific method is the inquiry > method that, by its own account, can go wrong as well as right. They don't > always say "shown to be false," they'll say "ruled out" or "disconfirmed" > or "disfavored" or the like. The majority of explanatory hypotheses, even > the fruitful ones, turn out to be false; the surprising thing, as Peirce > often pointed out, is that they aren't false much oftener. - Best, Ben > > On 10/1/2016 11:34 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Ben, Jon, List, > > Ben, you commented: > > "An abductive inference may be good and successful in terms of the > economics of inquiry, even if it turns out to conclude in a falsehood, if > it nevertheless helps research by either making it positively fruitful > (think of all the hypotheses that positively help lead to truth without > scoring a 'hole in one') or at least by leading to knowledge of a > previously unknown dead end that would otherwise have caused waste of time > and energy." > > I would tend to agree strongly with this but wonder whether 'falsehood' is > the best expression to describe what happens in such a case. The abduction > is 'good' if it is testable, even if the hypothesis is not, or not fully, > borne out. As you suggested, information is sometimes gained from testing > such hypotheses which, in the economy of research, is useful for further > inquiry. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > > > > > > *Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 > <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
