abduction = inference to the best explanation

[Nick Thompson]

Phil

You cited the Dictionary of Philosophy definition of abduction as follows

A heuristic procedure that reasons inductively from available empirical
evidence to the discovery of the probable hypotheses that would best
explain its occurrence.  This sounds a lot to me like Inference to the Best
Explanation.  An event is taken to be explained by the explanation which if
true would provide the BEST explanation of the event.  The quality of an
explanation is judged by its "likeliness" and its "loveliness"; likeliness
is its probability of being true given the facts we know and "loveliness"
is its adherence to various aesthetic principles such as coherence,
simplicity, etc.   Here I think I am paraphrasing the philosopher Peter
Lipton, and if I were a good scholar and/or it were earlier in the evening
I would get up off my but and look it up in his book.  But alas none of
these initial conditions obtains.  

So, then, if metaphoric reasoning is not what is meant by abduction, what
kind of duction is metaphoric reasoning?  

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 8/14/2006 10:19:28 PM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 33
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: The art of agent-based modeling (Phil Henshaw)
>    2. Re: Agar, Abduction (Phil Henshaw)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:59:40 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <006101c6c00e$797bcef0$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Ah... ok, if you're right!  
> But what's the model for finding the gaps in the model?   I think it's
> observation, reading the world completely without a model sometimes if
> necessary.
>
> > >
> > > - How do we simulate the core of a problem
> > >   without merely constructing an illustration
> > >   of our own beliefs and assumptions ?
> >
> >
> > I'd change this to
> >
> > How do we make clear the core of a problem through constructing an  
> > illustration of our own beliefs and assumptions
> >
> > and say that's exactly what both great science and great art do.  
> > Science then has the obligation to challenge it against new
> > instances  
> > of the problem in the classic Popperian way.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Phil
>  
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:19:15 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Agar, Abduction
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>, "'The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <006201c6c011$34ef41b0$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I puzzled about why someone would muck up a perfectly good English word
> with an entirely foreign meaning, but the philosophical use is well
> described on http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#abd , something
> about using heuristics http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/h2.htm#heur
> whatever they are.    It almost seems to describe the form of reasoning
> that careful human thinkers probably used for most of the past million
> years or so, and would probably still have a use for confusing problems.
>  
>  
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: Michael Agar
> Cc: Friam
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Agar, Abduction
>
>
> Michael,
>  
> I think I, too, am a fan of abduction, even though I am not so sure I
> know what it is.  To me it means the use of metaphors to explain.  A
> great many years ago, when I was still in the monkey business, I was
> able to demonstrate that the "social structure" of a monkey "group" was
> the same, whether one convened it as a whole or only as a series of
> n(n-1)/2 pairs of monkeys, suggesting that a monkey social group is an
> aggregate property of the behavior of its pairs.  It was a startling
> observation, one I did not expect and one I did not altogether trust.
> What it suggested is that a group of monkeys, maintained in individual
> cages, and paired for observation, and who never had physical contact
> with monkeys outside of those meetings, was a good metaphor (model) for
> the group operating as a group in the ordinary sense.  
>  
> This is an example of a very low level abduction.  Natural selection
> theory ... the idea that what happens in a breeders barnyard or stable
> etc. can be taken as a model for what happens in nature ... is an
> example of a very high level abduction.   Evolution ... the idea that
> the change in species through time is akin to the ramification of a
> trees branches at it grows upward to the light .... is another.  Good
> metaphors stimulate thought and experiment, but a metaphor maker has a
> deep responsibility to stipulate which parts of his metaphor are
> facetious ... designed for fun and cognitive promotion, not part of what
> Mary Brenda Hesse calls "the positive heuristic of the metaphor".
> Famous authors of widely read books often get away with ignoring that
> responsibility, viz, Richard Dawkins and his Selfish Gene.  
>
> So.  Are we talking about the same thing when we talk about abduction?
> As a man with a stiff hip, abduction is a concept I can use some help
> with.  
>  
> Nick
>  
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael  <mailto:magar at anth.umd.edu> Agar
> To: nickthompson at earthlink.net
> Cc: friam at redfish.com
> Sent: 8/14/2006 1:00:53 PM
> Subject: Popper misuse
>
> Hi Nick. I'm actually an abduction fan myself.
>
> I shouldn't have taken Popper's name in vain, since all I really meant
> was falsification. Validity comes out of the research that precedes a
> model, the model explores and clarifies a core argument of that
> research, then in science the argument is put to the test in any number
> of imaginative ways where procedures are explicit and capable of
> falsifying or at least complicating the argument. Not everyone's cup of
> code by a long shot, but one I find useful. I don't think very many
> people think this way either (:
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Mike A. writes:
>
> How do we make clear the core of a problem through constructing an
> illustration of our own beliefs and assumptions
>
> and say that's exactly what both great science and great art do.
> Science then has the obligation to challenge it against new instances
> of the problem in the classic Popperian way.
>
> One trouble with Popper is, of course, that people just dont think that
> way.  We engage in induction no matter how illogical it may be.
> Somebody I
> knew had a small animal skin.... ferret or something ... nailed to a
> board
> at one end.  When you petted it, it arched its back, so to speak.
> Should
> we conclude that that is why cats arch their backs when you pet them????
>
> Probably not.  
>
> The other trouble with Popper is, as David Stove pointed out, that EVERY
> DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE REQUIRES INDUCTION TO GET IT INTO THE REALM OF
> PRACTICAL EXPERIMENT.  So, for instance, as we are busily nailing our
> live
> cat to a board to test our deductive inference, we must assume that all
> our
> operations have the same effects in the live cat and in the ferret skin
> case, and this assumption is an INDUCTIVE STEP subject to all of
> Popper's
> doubts about the possibility of induction.  
>
> I think Stove concluded that we just had to suck it up and go back to
> making rules for inductive inference, dubious as the whole enterprise
> is.  
>
> So then the question would be, under what conditions do we accept that
> when
> the simple agents that we send forth to do battle in our models product
> the
> same collective behavior as the apparently real agents we see around us,
> that the real agents actually behave by the same underlying rules as the
> our created ones?  
>
> Stove wrote a subsequent book on induction, but I havent read it.  Has
> anybody???
>
>
> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 8/14/2006 12:00:21 PM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 29
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. the odd question (Phil Henshaw) (Nicholas Thompson)
>    2. The art of agent-based modeling (Jochen Fromm)
>    3. Re: The art of agent-based modeling (Marcus G. Daniels)
>    4. Re: The art of agent-based modeling (Jochen Fromm)
>    5. Re: The art of agent-based modeling (mgd at santafe.edu)
>    6. Re: The art of agent-based modeling (Michael Agar)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:40:29 -0400
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [FRIAM] the odd question (Phil Henshaw)
> To: "Friam" <Friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <380-22006811434029151 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Phil,
>
> I hate it when one of my topics gets dropped, and therefore feel guilty
>
> for being one of the DROPPERS, here.
>
>
> Sometimes the discussions get so far reaching  and technical that I am
>
> forced to "pass over them in silence" as Wittegenstein said.  
>
>
> the only piece of your message that I have anything  nearly competent to
>
> say about is  your  ....
>
>
>
> "when modern science took an interest in complex systems it,
> concentrated
>
> on theory rather than on carefully documenting the physical phenomenon."
>
>
> I wonder if this isnt a common occcurence in science.  Think of
>
> Evolutionary Biology   Darwinism has a much stronger hand on its
> theories
> than it does on the things those theories explain.  Think for a moment
> about  our realtive grasp on "natural selection" and "adaptation".
> Natural
> selection is supposed to the be "cause" of adaptation, yet we seem to
> understand the cause much better than we understand the effect.   Ask an
> evolutionary biologist to define adaptation: 90 percent will use the
> word
> natural selection in their definitions, because they dont have clue what
> they mean by adaptation.  
>
>
> Thus, it doesnt surprise me that wise and sophisticated people can talk
>
> about the theory of complexity without having a clue what they mean by
> it.
>
>
> I got a group of people to gether at Clark a few years back to start a
>
> research project on emergence in human social groups.  We were NEVER
> able
> to come up with a phenomenon that everybody agreed was an instance of
> emergence.    
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060813/be24b22f/attachment-00
> 01.h
> tml
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:14:55 +0200
> From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de>
> Subject: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <000701c6bf9b$41129210$976fa8c0 at Toshiba>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> One question I meet again and again if I try to
> make meaningful agent-based simulations is:
> - How do we simulate the core of a problem
>   without merely constructing an illustration
>   of our own beliefs and assumptions ?
> In other words: How detailed should an agent-based
> simulation be ? If the goal is "to capture the principal
> laws behind the exciting variety of new phenomena that become
> apparent when the many units of a complex system interact", as
> Tamas Vicsek says in http://angel.eltehu/~vicsek/images/complex.pdf
> <http://angel.elte.hu/~vicsek/images/complex.pdf>
> then how do we design models that are complex enough but not too
> complex ?
>
> -If the simulation is too simple and matches your
>  own theoretical ideas, then no matter how good these
>  ideas are it is always easy to criticize that the
>  simulation is either not realistic enough or only
>  constructed to illustrate your own ideas and assumptions.
> -If the simulation is too complex and matches
>  official experimental data, everything takes a
>  lot amount of time (creation, setup and execution of
>  the experiment and finally the cumbersome analysis
>  of the complex outcomes), and it becomes increasingly
>  difficult to identify the principal laws, because it is
>  easy to get lost in the data or bogged down in details
>
> The "art of agent-based modeling" looks really like an art
> to me, something only mastered by a few scientists (for instance
> Axelrod). Grimm et al. propose 'pattern-oriented modeling',
> Macy and Willer say "Keep it simple" and "Test validity".
> What do you think is the best solution for this problem ?
>
> Macy and Willer
> "From Factors to Actors: Computational Sociology and Agent-Based
> Modeling"
>
>
> http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/education/phd/classpapers/Macy_Factors_2001.
> pdf
>
>
> Grimm et al.
> "Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems"
> Science Vol. 310. no. 5750 (2005) 987-991
> http://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=4976
>
> -J.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Agar
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 5:05 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] complexity and society
>
> [...] If you are considering a model, I like Axelrod's way of thinking  
> about them. He sees them as "thought experiment labs" for a  
> conclusion based on social research. So first of all the social  
> research has to be solid to really do it properly. More often than  
> not it isn't.
>
> The lab let's you test arguments of the form, if people do things in  
> particular ways properties will emerge at the level of society. By  
> "test" I mean it lets you see if the conclusion can be "generated,"  
> to use Epstein and Axtell's concept, in just the way your social  
> research suggests that it can. It's a way of making the argument that  
> underlies the conclusion explicit so it can be better evaluated, and  
> it allows for exploration of the space of results that the same  
> argument produces and alternative spaces given control parameter  
> changes. It's a test of plausibility and an exercise in clarity,  
> nothing more, nothing less. [...]
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:07:05 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <mgd at santafe.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <44E08389.5070109 at santafe.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Jochen,
>
> -If the simulation is too complex and matches
>  official experimental data, everything takes a
>  lot amount of time (creation, setup and execution of
>  the experiment and finally the cumbersome analysis
>  of the complex outcomes), and it becomes increasingly
>  difficult to identify the principal laws, because it is
>  easy to get lost in the data or bogged down in details
>
>
> This may be a false choice.   In the case of having some data of
> moderate resolution, there's no point in making a hugely elaborate model
>
> and simulation, because you'll never be able to validate beyond your
> data anyway.   And if you don't validate, although the modeling still
> may be useful as an thought experiment, it isn't science.  You have to
> be able to say something that can be shown to be wrong.   If you do aim
> to learn things about the world and then predict them it's not desirable
>
> to have giant black box with lots of moving parts.   It's better, if at
> all possible, to have a simple story and make the simulation nothing
> more than apparatus to help extend the data so that the dynamics can be
> studied by theoreticians.
>
> Another mode of use for ABMs is to lower expectations of theoretical
> traction and opportunistically look for ways a model makes useful
> predictions and then modify the model in that direction over time.  
> This is a risky and expensive craft, but one that might have high enough
>
> payoffs to consider (e.g. national security).
>
> It depends on the data and what is of interest.   If the data tells you
> about a number of rare events, and it is these events is what you really
>
> care about, then it may make sense to loosely model everyday behaviors
> and focus on model microstructure that can create the rare events you
> care about.
>
> Finally, sometimes microstructure is known with clearly defined degrees
> of freedom, and the dynamics are of interest.  Consider modeling a
> factory where different assembly regimes are to be evaluated..  There's
> no need to validate here because the whole exercise is to answer
> what-ifs about realizable specific systems.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:04:40 +0200
> From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <000801c6bfb2$f76ede80$976fa8c0 at Toshiba>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> Of course it is the essence of science to verify hypotheses
> by experiments. Yet sometimes we have neither suitable
> experimental data nor a solid theory, for example
> in the case of very large agent-based systems (for instance
> for the self-organization and self-management of large
> internet applications on planetary scale, or the modeling
> of historical processes with millions of actors). It is
> hardly possible to examine these systems without simplified
> models, and in this case the questions I mentioned seem to
> be justified.
>
> In traditional "factor-based" or "equation-based modeling"
> we use differential equations and everything is based
> on a soild theory: mathematics. This traditional modeling
> has a century-long history and we know the suitable parameters,
> equations and models. Agent-based modeling has a short history,
> we don't know exactly the suitable parameters, agents and models,
> and worst of all it is not based on a solid theoretical
> theorem-lemma-proof science or calculus like mathematics.
>
> What is missing is a solid science of ABM or a new science of
> complexity - something in the direction of Wolfram's NKS idea
> (exploring computational universes in a systematic way). Just
> as formal, symmetrical and regular systems can be described by
> mathematics and 'equation-based modeling', complex systems can
> in principle be described by a 'NKS' and agent-based modeling
> - which seems to be more an art than a science.
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:50:59 -0600
> From: mgd at santafe.edu
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1155570659.44e09be35f52a at webmail.santafe.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Quoting Jochen Fromm <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de>:
>
>
> Just as formal, symmetrical and regular systems can be described by
> mathematics and 'equation-based modeling', complex systems can
> in principle be described by a 'NKS' and agent-based modeling
> - which seems to be more an art than a science.
>
>
> In context, I think is a verification issue.  
>
> ABMs are useful for poking around a complicated system to see what
>
> matters and
>
> what doesn't by using a familiar and direct way of describing things,
> and
>
> to
>
> leave the abstractions for later.  ABMs complement traditional
> techniques
>
> of
>
> analysis by extending data.
>
> The imperative programming languages that are typically used to make the
>
> simulations are prone to a variety of programming mistakes but the
>
> continue to
>
> be used because 1) they are common and 2) they provide an easy way to
>
> think
>
> about side effects (e.g. modifications to a landscape).
>
> Equation-based modelling is more like functional programming, e.g.
>
> programming
>
> languages like Haskell that are side-effect free.   I see ABMs moving to
>
> these
>
> kinds of programming languages so that components of a simulation can be
>
> shown
>
> to be correct, and preferably by automated means.  
>
> As a practical matter, I think it isn't a big deal.  Unit testing during
>
> development by experienced programmers/modelers does a good job of
>
> shaking out
>
> bugs.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:58:05 -0600
> From: Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The art of agent-based modeling
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <18528635-4305-4EB8-8D01-CA9C885E3826 at anth.umd.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:14 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - How do we simulate the core of a problem
>   without merely constructing an illustration
>   of our own beliefs and assumptions ?
>
>
>
> I'd change this to
>
> How do we make clear the core of a problem through constructing an  
> illustration of our own beliefs and assumptions
>
> and say that's exactly what both great science and great art do.  
> Science then has the obligation to challenge it against new instances  
> of the problem in the classic Popperian way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 29
> *************************************
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060814/1c2705bb/attachment.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 33
> *************************************

[Roger Critchlow-2]

On 8/14/06, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> So, then, if metaphoric reasoning is not what is meant by abduction, what
> kind of duction is metaphoric reasoning?
>

It's duct tape, not a duction at all.

-- rec --