quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Ok, so banal is our new word. After Sue so graciously spelled out what a diatribe is, it seems we have another example. So let it be...

As far as my peeping or not peeping, nothing says that I must respond to attacks or even in the time frame that you specify. But looking at your quote of me, it seems that you have messed it up and as a result may have missed my opening portion:

quote:

Thanks for your words of wisdom as well as providing another example of divergent thinking.

To me, that allowed you to save grace and end this line of attacks, but it seems you had other thoughts you had to express. Let us again look at what Kate wrote:

quote:

abduction logic
The process of inference to the best explanation.
"Abduction" is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing.
The semantics and the implementation of abduction cannot be reduced to those for deduction, as explanation cannot be reduced to implication.

Applications include fault diagnosis, plan formation and default reasoning.
Negation as failure in logic programming can both be given an abductive interpretation and also can be used to implement abduction. The abductive semantics of negation as failure leads naturally to an argumentation-theoretic interpretation of default reasoning in general.

quote:

quote:

Or assemble more diatribes...

Sue: The latin says it best, I think: spend time, wear away, rub.

Please enjoy your discourses without rubbing away at each other. The friction may give heat, but it won't give light.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Welcome back Ren

Are you near the river that flooded I5?

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Sorry to hear about that ren.

I live in Seattle, but on a hill, so we weren't effected at all by the flooding, however I saw the photos on the news and they were awful.

I heard that Governor Gregoire has issued a state of emergency and is asking for assistance from the federal government (FEMA). I wonder how long that will take to arrive?

Good luck, take care.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Having trouble learning about hypothetical thinking. It sounds like divergent thinking but cant really locate the process.

I keep getting kick of to Dialectical reasoning Here

quote:

Stage Five: Dialectical Reasoning

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches and views may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

Dialectical reasoning consists of moving back and forth between contrary lines of reasoning, using each to cross-examine the other. This is what juries are supposed to do in arriving at a verdict: consider arguments and evidence for and against a case, point and counterpoint. It is a process in which opposing facts and ideas are weighed and compared for the purposes of determining the best solution, resolving differences, and coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence and logic.

In a democratic and pluralistic nation such as Canada, there are a number of identified issues that reasonable people will still disagree about even after a careful analysis of both sides of the issue. On the other hand, it is important to also realize that there are certain issues that reasonable people do not disagree about; for example, all reasonable people know that racism is wrong.

Some people have difficulty with dialectical reasoning because their self-esteem depends on their being right and having their beliefs accepted by others. We all have our convictions, but the inability to consider alternative views and evidence with an open mind is a major obstacle to critical thinking. Other obstacles include:

· the tendency to form quick, impulsive opinions instead of fully developed arguments;

· reaching decisions based on what “feels right” at the moment be, and not distinguishing between knowledge and belief, or between belief and evidence, and not seeing any reason for justifying a belief;

· thinking that because some things cannot be known with absolute certainty, any judgement about the evidence is purely subjective, and defending a position with the explanation that “We all have a right to our own opinions,” as if all opinions are created equal.

When we become capable of critical thinking, we understand that although some things can never be known with certainty, some judgements are more valid than others because of their coherence, their fit with the evidence, and their usefulness. When reasoning dialectically, we are willing to consider evidence from a variety of sources, to justify our conclusions as representing the most complete, plausible or compelling understanding of an issue, based on currently available evidence -- this means abandoning “ignorant certainty” in favour of “intelligent confusion.”

Dialectical reasoning can also be described as reflective judgment: the ability to evaluate and integrate evidence, relate that evidence to a theory or opinion, and reach a conclusion that can be defended as reasonable and valid. To think dialectically, we must evaluate evidence and question assumptions, consider alternative interpretations, and stand ready to reassess our conclusions in the face of new evidence. This process works in a cycle that involves 3 basic steps:

· a thesis, which is a statement of an idea, viewpoint or position;

· an antithesis, which is the statement of an alternative and possibly contrary (conflicting) idea;

· a synthesis, which is the reconciliation of the two prior ideas in a way that integrates the best aspects of those ideas.

Ultimately, the synthesis serves as a new thesis and the cycle repeats. The synthesis typically shows that ideas that seem to conflict or to be contradictory are not necessarily so – there is unity in the diverse aspects of the issue. The reconciliation of the ideas, however, may require discarding weaker or flawed aspects of the ideas. Thus, other aspects of the ideas can be integrated in a way that builds on their strengths and more reasonable qualities.

• Divergent thinking (DV) about the problem or question that needs to be addressed.
  
• CT who else has studied this problem and what conclusions did they come to as well what techniques were used.
  
• CT of what the null-hypothesis will be and what technique will be used.
  
• CT of the results. But then observe what statistical aspects may indicating problems including heteroscedasticity, functional form and all that other hard to remember tests.
  
• DT of how to come up with solutions to the above problems.
  
• CT on the relevance of the results. And come to a conclusion or...
  
• DT on possible directions to further study and what questions have not cropped up with the findings of the conclusions.
  
• CT to just start over...

quote:

Reframing my posts as attacks on you or anyone does not make them attacks.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Reframing my posts as attacks on you or anyone does not make them attacks.

Do you really want me to address this?

quote:

Five Steps in Hypothesis Testing:
1. Specify the Null Hypothesis
2. Specify the Alternative Hypothesis
3. Set the Significance Level (a)
4. Calculate the Test Statistic and Corresponding P-Value
5. Drawing a Conclusion

quote:

Five Steps in Hypothesis Testing:
1. Specify the Null Hypothesis
2. Specify the Alternative Hypothesis
3. Set the Significance Level (a)
4. Calculate the Test Statistic and Corresponding P-Value
5. Drawing a Conclusion

quote:

Wow that is a bit complicated can you put the five step in a real world thesis?