28-10-2010, 07:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2010, 07:19 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
I agree with Albert Doyle, who has made some astute comments in the course of this thread. Jack and I only rarely differ, as we do in the case of the identify of the third tramp, whom I believe to have been Chauncey Holt, and of course regarding Judyth Baker, in whom I believe but Jack does not.
His suggestion that I sometimes "leap to conclusions" might be correct but is a more serious matter, since, if he were right, it would count against me with greater force than with others, since I have spent my professional career as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years!
So if Jack has drawn that inference, then could there be an explanation that might exonerate me to some degree? I would note that students should converge in their conclusions only when they are considering the same evidence and the same hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.
The case of Chauncey is a cast in point. Not only did I meet him and study him extensively, I also arranged for a symposium involving members of is family, where his daughter, Karyn, presented photos from their family album and superimposed them over various photos of the third tramp.
Jerry Rose was present for the session, which unfortunately was not filmed, and observed during the question period that, while he had long believed the figure in question was E. Howard Hunt, he now believed that it actually was Chauncey Holt. I only wish that Jack had been there, too.
While the principles of deductive reasoning are generally well-known, those of inductive reasoning, especially those of inference to the best explanation -- which depends upon the use of probabilities and likelihoods -- are not, where every inductively proper argument is deductively invalid.
That, I think, is the rub. Those who have not studied inductive reasoning are likely to suppose inductive arguments are logically fallacious. Plus a distinction must be drawn between conclusions that are "preferable" and "acceptable", like the strongest suspect before an arrest is warranted.
The most difficult part of scientific reasoning, moreover, is to expose the full range of alternative explanations. There are some in the 9/11 truth movement who still think I endorse "space beams" as satellite-mounted directed energy weapons when I instead encourage research on them.
An accessible introduction to scientific reasoning may be found in the initial sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". While I may have committed mental lapses in the course of my research, I would like to know the particulars before I plead, "Guilty as charged"!
His suggestion that I sometimes "leap to conclusions" might be correct but is a more serious matter, since, if he were right, it would count against me with greater force than with others, since I have spent my professional career as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years!
So if Jack has drawn that inference, then could there be an explanation that might exonerate me to some degree? I would note that students should converge in their conclusions only when they are considering the same evidence and the same hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.
The case of Chauncey is a cast in point. Not only did I meet him and study him extensively, I also arranged for a symposium involving members of is family, where his daughter, Karyn, presented photos from their family album and superimposed them over various photos of the third tramp.
Jerry Rose was present for the session, which unfortunately was not filmed, and observed during the question period that, while he had long believed the figure in question was E. Howard Hunt, he now believed that it actually was Chauncey Holt. I only wish that Jack had been there, too.
While the principles of deductive reasoning are generally well-known, those of inductive reasoning, especially those of inference to the best explanation -- which depends upon the use of probabilities and likelihoods -- are not, where every inductively proper argument is deductively invalid.
That, I think, is the rub. Those who have not studied inductive reasoning are likely to suppose inductive arguments are logically fallacious. Plus a distinction must be drawn between conclusions that are "preferable" and "acceptable", like the strongest suspect before an arrest is warranted.
The most difficult part of scientific reasoning, moreover, is to expose the full range of alternative explanations. There are some in the 9/11 truth movement who still think I endorse "space beams" as satellite-mounted directed energy weapons when I instead encourage research on them.
An accessible introduction to scientific reasoning may be found in the initial sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". While I may have committed mental lapses in the course of my research, I would like to know the particulars before I plead, "Guilty as charged"!