First, did you miss Dave's contribution? It was more on-topic than mine!
On Rigor: Yes, there's quite a bit of what you say I can agree with. But only if I modify *my* understanding
of "rigor". I think rigor is any methodical, systematic behavior to which one adheres to strictly.
It is the fid
Maybe to give context to my hand-wavey colloquial nonsense below, I *really*
like Gabbay and Woods' [†] formulation of an "abductive schema":
> Let Δ=(A_1,…,A_n) be a *database* of some kind. It could be a theory or an
> inventory of beliefs, for example. Let ⊢ be a *yielding relation*, or, in t
As a wimsical ponderance:
The other day got duncan donuts coffe over my usual storebrand stuff. Man
what a difference! much nicer to my tung and a lot more flavor full in
comparison! Smiths brand cofee just is over roasted and kind of gross in
comparison. And even better yet is Petes brand. I wond
A good word to generalize implication, causation, etc. Is entailment.
There is an old book by Anderson and Belnap which may shed some light on
abduction. It's title is The Logic of Entailment.
I always thought that abduction had the form "If A entails B then the
presence/occurrence of B makes it
Hi, Glen,
This is one of those moments when Steve Smith may be able to rescue my ability
to participate further in this conversation by making a translation. Steve?
Can you help here?
By the way, I am still puzzled by how one makes inferences or explanations
without categories and/or pri
