You just don't like abductive reasoning
It is not the case that the premises strongly support the conclusion. It is the conclusion that supports the premises. An abductive argument for fine-tuning is very similar to induction. Rather than the premises adding to the probability of the conclusion the conclusion adds to the probability of the premises.

First, he argues against my wording concerning the relationship of the evidence and the fine-tuner. This is simply a dislike for abductive arguments on his part. It is not the case that the premises strongly support the conclusion. It is the conclusion that supports the premises. An abductive argument for fine-tuning is very similar to induction. Rather than the premises adding to the probability of the conclusion the conclusion adds to the probability of the premises.  This is not to completely exclude the role of the premises adding to the probability of the conclusion but there is a greater emphasis of using the best explanation (the conclusion) to fit the data (the premises).  The belief in question is assessed as the consequent and then considering what may be the best explanation for that belief, antecedently.  This may seem fallacious but inference to the best explanation is a commonly accepted form of reasoning.  Additionally, this abductive process only comes into the process when assessing whether the evidence sufficiently corresponds to the belief since the belief typically arises by the antecedent evidence and then as the consequent, it is the assessment of the belief that requires working backwards.

W.P. Alston, W.B. Gallie, and Michael Scriven have observed, such arguments can be restated in a logically acceptable form if it can be shown that Y has only one cause (i.e. X) or that X is a necessary condition (or cause) of Y.  Thus, arguments of the form:

1)     X is antecedently necessary to Y,

2)     Y exists,

3)     Therefore, X existed.

are logically valid by philosophers and persuasive by historical and forensic scientists.[2]

Its application to this case is that a particular abductive hypothesis can be firmly established if it can be shown that it represents the best or only explanation of the “manifest effects” in question.[3]

CONTEXT(Help)
-
Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist? »Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist?
The God of Christianity exists »The God of Christianity exists
The Fine-Tuning Argument »The Fine-Tuning Argument
(2) Life in the universe is not unlikely if there is a fine-tuner. »(2) Life in the universe is not unlikely if there is a fine-tuner.
What justification is there for this assumption? »What justification is there for this assumption?
You just don't like abductive reasoning
The Likelihood Principle works only on non-ad hoc hypotheses »The Likelihood Principle works only on non-ad hoc hypotheses
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About