|
|
Types of Argumentation |
|
|
|
Critique of Retroduction |
|
|
|
In critiquing retroductive reasoning, it is
best not to make absolute judgments. Retroduction is the weakest
form of reasoning, i.e. the form of reasoning most prone to error, so no
retroductive argument is entirely to be trusted. On the other hand, any
explanation is bound to be better than no explanation at all, so no
retroductive argument is entirely to be despised. The result is that, when
critiquing retroductive reasoning, it is best to make only comparative
judgments. Consider two explanations together, and try to determine which of
the two is better and which is worse. There are many questions that can be asked when
comparing one explanation (or retroductive argument) to another. However,
these questions can be placed into three basic categories.
|
|
|
|
|
I. Simplicity/Plausibility
A strong explanation has a compelling elegance that makes it seem more
believable; a weak explanation feels baroque, strained, and difficult to
believe. Some factors that can contribute to simplicity/plausibility...
|
|
|
| A. Ockham's
Razor. Minimal appeal to causal factors of any kind. Ockham himself
expressed this principle by saying, "Don't multiply entities
unnecessarily." By "entities" it is generally assumed that he meant
"causes," i.e. any factor that might have an influence on the facts to
be explained. 1. The stronger explanation
appeals to the smaller number of mechanisms, forces and laws - ideally
only one - rather than relying on multiple unrelated causes. Since the
co-occurrence of two (or more) unrelated causal factors is a
coincidence, this criterion could also be expressed by saying that the
stronger explanations avoids appealing to coincidences or unusual
circumstances.
2. Where an explanation does appeal to
coincidences or unusual circumstances, it does so only to the extent
that such coincidences and circumstances are known to occur, i.e. it
sets the probability of an event occurring approximately equal to its
observed frequency of occurrence.
|
| B. Minimal appeal to unrecognized forces and
mechanisms. A recognized force or mechanism is one that is believed to
exist or to be in operations by everyone, or, if not by everyone, then
by nearly everyone, or at any rate by the acknowledged experts in the
relevant area of knowledge. Naturally, it is better to appeal to
recognized forces and mechanisms rather than to unrecognized forces and
mechanisms.
1. The stronger explanation appeals to, or is consistent with, laws,
forces and mechanisms already known to apply in other contexts -
acknowledged laws of physics and recognized patterns of human behavior -
rather than proposing or requiring new laws, forces and mechanisms, or appealing to
mechanisms not generally believed to exist.
2. Where new laws, forces and mechanisms
are proposed, the resulting explanation should be compellingly
elegant in other respects.
|
| C. Minimal appeal to agency and contrivance. It is
better to appeal to forces and mechanisms that operate without conscious
direction, rather than to mechanisms guided by intentional choices
requiring planning and preparation. 1. The stronger
explanation appeals only to mechanisms that operate without conscious
direction, rather than appealing to the actions of conscious, willful
agents.
2. Where an explanation does appeal
to the action of conscious agents, the number of such agents is kept to
a minimum, the number of choices or decisions made by each agent is kept
to a minimum, and the number of motives responsible for the behavior of
each agent is kept to a minimum.
|
|
|
II. Fecundity A strong
explanation explains a multitude of facts; a weak explanation has little
application beyond the fact it was initially called upon to explain. Some
factors that can contribute to fecundity...
|
|
|
| A. The stronger explanation explains a whole category
of facts rather than explaining only an individual event. It fits the
event to be explained into a general pattern. The weaker explanation
treats the event to be explained as an isolated incident or as an
exception. |
| B. The stronger explanation explains a diversity of
facts, i.e. facts relevant to different areas of study, or facts widely
separated in time and space, etc. It may even explain facts not
originally considered to be part of the problem. The weaker explanation
explains only what it was called upon to explain. |
|
|
III. Testability A
strong explanation suggests further observations (called "predictions") that
are unlikely to be realized or manifested if the explanation is not true, but
are highly likely to be manifested if the explanation is true; a weak
explanation offers few predictions, or only predictions that cannot be put
to the test in practice.
|
|
|
| A. Confirmation. As tests are performed, the stronger explanation
will predict, or at least be consistent with, the results of those
tests, even without the addition of supplementary hypotheses. The weaker
hypothesis may remain consistent with the results of the tests, but will
become more complex as further features are added to the hypothesis to
maintain this consistency. |
| B. The Risk of Disconfirmation. By making clear
predictions, the stronger explanation risks disconfirmation, i.e. it
risks being judged inconsistent with the results of a test. Ironically,
the weaker hypothesis, by making few predictions, runs less risk of
disconfirmation. |
|
|
|
|
Go to: WELCOME
EXPLANATION
of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES
INDEX
|