And how many have you abducted already ?
25175173 + 34223614 = 59398787
Voila, i made a new truth via deduction(okay maybe someone did come up with that before, but i cba to add more numbers to that, since this should prove my point already).
Another bit less simplified example would be jungian typology(yea yea someone might disagree with its validity, but just an example).
How do you think many of the scientific discoveries are made? First there is a hypothesis that is made using deduction, then the hypothesis is tested and validated. The new truth was made via deduction before the validation, even tho it might had not been proven true before, but nevertheless it was true and was made up by deduction.
I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Actually now that you mentioned, its abductive reasoning, i thought abductive was some subclass of deductive and didnt think it as something separate.
You said it was inductive, but its abductive.
In logic, three kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished: deduction, induction and abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way:
Deduction means determining the conclusion. It is using the rule and its precondition to make a conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. It rained. Therefore, the grass is wet." Mathematicians are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
Induction means determining the rule. It is learning the rule after numerous examples of the conclusion following the precondition. Example: "The grass has been wet every time it has rained. Therefore, when it rains, the grass gets wet." Scientists are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to support that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, therefore, it may have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:
Wrong.
Wrong again.
Wrong a third time.
Right.
Wrong.
What about your statement that I corrected pointed specifically to abductive vs. inductive reasoning?
Answer: nothing.
It was ambiguous as to whether it was inductive or abductive.
Furthermore, as the definitions from wikipedia point out, induction is the style more commonly associated with science.
And, to the broader point, what are now known separately as abductive and inductive reasoning for hundreds of years of the scientific method were both known simply as inductive reasoning. As such, I, and many other people smarter than yourself, consider the two present-day concepts to be subclasses of what used to be known simply as inductive reasoning. It is not an inaccurate way to use the terms, as say, it is to use deductive reasoning to signify abductive or inductive reasoning.
You're the noob who thought it was all just deductive.
Wrong.
I and many other people smarter than you think that abductive and inductive are different things.
Wrong a fifth time.
I know that the two modern-day concepts can be delineated as two separate things. I just put them as subclasses under the broader umbrella of what was once, and for a long time, considered just one concept.
It's cool, though, man. Everyone reading this knows that you're wrong.
Game. Set. Match.
Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.
You're welcome, [MENTION=332]Mycroft[/MENTION].
Induction means determining the rule
Abduction means determining the precondition
Lies. You are only showing the irrational egoistic nature of yourself.
For example black swans are mistakes in induction, but have nothing to do with abduction, since abduction doesent try to predict rules, but looks for probable causes.
Easy served(by a noob) XD
Jungian shadow projection.
I already knew this.
I could say the same thing about the shadow projection with the you calling me stupid.
If you already knew that abduction is not induction, why were you arguing that it is? Stop contradicting yourself :----DDD
Yes, you could.
But only one of us would be right.
And that would be me.
Once again, you're obviously not smart enough to get the point.
I'm done here; feel free to make up whatever delusions you want about this.
Everybody who reads it will know that you're an *****; feel free to keep making yourself look like one, tho.
Cant be so hard to figure out that im just poking at your ego :----DDDD . Oh wait, you didnt realize your enormous ego that inhibits you from seeing the truth and makes you say stupid things XD
Deductive - finding the effect, given the cause and the rule.
Abductive - finding the cause, given the rule and the effect.
Inductive - finding the rule, given the cause and the effect.
Excellent delusion there.
Hope it works out for you.
This is accurate.
And, as you will see, both abduction and induction work by starting with the effect.
This is why they were originally collapsed under the same umbrella, until Charles Sanders Peirce delineated the difference.
Who's gonna give up first this time, INTP or Zarathustra?
I'll take being right the whole time.
He can say whatever stupid thing he wants to get the last word.
He said it was "a fluff thread". This isn't the place for fluff.How is this the wrong forum? It's all about NTs and it's in the NT forum. Unless it was already moved before I asked this question.