Marg,
Responding to your post of 21 May on ad hoc hypotheses. Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs
Predictions can be derived from a hypothesis only in conjunction
with a background theory. This background theory provides
information about the objects under study as well as the apparatus
used to study them. If a prediction turns out to be false, we can always
save the hypothesis by modifying the background theory.
>>
and In general, any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of
seemingly adverse evidence if we're willing to make enough alterations
in our background beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be
conclusively confuted.
I don’t see “ad hoc” in this quote, but after reviewing Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion, I will modify my point. This statement is based on philosopher Philip Kitcher’s analysis of what an ad hoc move or invention does, that is, by implication. It deals with a larger philosophical discussion on disproving hypotheses in general (see their discussion of the Quine-Duhem hypothsis on p. 155, as well as the problem of underdeterminism), not just with ad hocs. This is why Copi says:
The general situation seems to be that it is not necessary to invoke ad hoc hypotheses—in either the second or third senses of the term, which are the derogatory ones—to prevent experiments from being crucial. Even if we confine our attention to theoretically significant hypotheses, and never invoke any ad hoc hypotheses at all, no experiments are ever crucial for individual hypotheses, since hypotheses are testable only in groups. (p. 454 in 1972 ed.).
My focus is less theoretical and more on the construction of the argument in the avoidance of adverse evidence, which is why the quote of me above continues:
… but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind
I was responding to your assertion that
There is “faulty reasoning” with after the fact changes of assumptions which is ad hoc fallacy and then there is after the fact reasoning/ ad hoc, which is reasonable and plausible and has nothing to do with faulty reasoning. My ad hocs which you accuse of being fallacious are reasonable and plausible and have nothing to do with the ad hoc fallacy.
There aren’t two groups of ad hocs—one that adjusts background theories using “faulty reasoning” and others that are “reasonable and plausible” that don’t change background assumptions and therefore are legitimate. Copi distinguishes three kinds of ad hocs (p. 452-53):
1. An after-the-fact explanation with empirically testable consequences, which haven’t been done at time of formulation—which may or may not be confirmed.
2. An after-the-fact hypothesis which accounts only for the particular fact or facts it was invented to explain and has no other explanatory power, that is, no testable consequences.
3. A descriptive generalization that has no explanatory power or theoretical scope.
It’s not always which category of ad hoc that matters—it’s the amount and a disposition to use them that weigh a theory down. This is why Wiki on “ad hoc hypotheses” states:
Naturally, some gaps in knowledge, and even falsifying observations must be temporarily tolerated while research continues. To temper ad hoc hypothesizing in science, common practice includes Falsificationism (somewhat in the philosophy of Occam's Razor). Falsificationism means scientists become more likely to reject a theory as it becomes increasingly burdened by ignored falsifying observations and ad hoc hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
Another source attempts to distinguish between science and pseudo-science:
You call something
ad hoc when it's introduced for a particular purpose, instead of for some general, antecedently motivated reason. So, for instance, an
ad hoc decision is a decision you make when there's no general rule or precedent telling you what to do.
Philosophers sometimes accuse their opponents of making
ad hoc hypotheses (or
ad hoc stipulations, or
ad hoc amendments to their analyses, etc.). These are hypotheses (or stipulations or amendments) adopted purely for the purpose of saving a theory from difficulty or refutation, without any independent motivation or rationale. They will usually strike the reader as artificial or "cheating."
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/glossary.html
Not all illegitimate ad hocs are irrational—it has more to do with the irrational use of them. Often blatant examples are used from pseudo-science to make the point more clear, but they also happen in less clear-cut situations. As one source discussing ad hocs explained:
Often enough, the decisive experiments and observations ringing the death knell of a theory are only to be identified in retrospect. However, even if the distinction between ad hoc moves and the legitimate introduction of auxiliaries may be vague in a technical sense, or difficult to distinguish in historical cases, some examples are so blatantly ad hoc that they cannot be regarded as legitimate by any stretch of reasoning. Indeed, by having a look at such blatant examples of ad hoc reasoning from the hinterland of pseudoscience, we may be better able to make sense of charges of adhocness in more complicated cases.
-- The Hypothesis that Saves the Day. Ad hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience
(draft version - to appear in Logique et Analyse)
http://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/ad-hoc
This same source goes on to use examples from pseudo-science to illuminate general principles:
Or similarly, consider the defender of biorhythm theory who resorts to the hypothesis that some people are “arrhythmic” some of the time when his predictions do not fit the observed patterns. (Carroll 2003, p. 7) Why are we entitled to reject these moves of ad hoc? Because we realize that, by the same token, any failed prediction can be explained away, and hence that there are no constraints on the use of the (type of) auxiliary hypothesis in question. …
As is clear from these examples, the broader context of a theoretical move is fundamental with regard to its being ad hoc. Although the presumption of ad hoc reasoning is strongest when we have actually witnessed several instances of opportunistic and inconsequential use of an auxiliary hypothesis, suspicion can also be warranted on the basis of a single case, provided that the lack of constraints is immediately transparent, and that it is clear that the hypothesis can yield nothing beyond explaining away particular failures.
In historiography, ad hocs are “suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs” (McCullagh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method). That is, suppositions that have no evidentiary basis. They are quite rational, although they are unfalsifiable. Historical interpretations with fewer ad hocs are given preference.
NOW BACK TO YOUR RESPONSES--
Ad hoc come into play when a claimant is attempting to save their claim or theory from recalcitrant evidence by making changes to background assumptions..it's fallacious when the changes are irrational and done to prevent recalcitrant evidence in order to maintain the theory.
An illegitimate move isn’t always obvious and “irrational”—some can be quite reasonable and beguiling. NOTE YOU HAVE GIVEN NO SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM AND HAVE IGNORED MY REFERENCES TO DEFINITIONS.
The background assumptions include other scientific theories and known facts which a new hypothesis is dependent upon. To make a new hypothesis work sometimes scientists change or remove accepted scientific theories. Look at your Intro to Logic by Copi which gives an example of Watson and Crick changing background assumptions “known facts and accepted theories” in order to make their theory work. As it turned out they were correct in doing so P 512
“If all those suppositions had indeed been correct, their double helix could not have been the structure of the filament. In the actual case, however, Watson and Crick, having confidence in their hypothesis, came to suspect that the accepted theory describing the ways in which the basis (A, G, C, and T) bond to each other was not entirely correct. By relinquishing that element in the set, and replacing it with a different account, one that supposed hydrogen bonds instead, the newly hypothesized double helix (with its allied theories) could be confirmed.”
You must have a later edition than mine. I did not locate this quote in my copy, which is the 1972 edition. Regardless, the adjustments in background theory may or may not be legitimate until independently tested. In historiography, testing and verification can’t happen the way it does in science, so pointing to Watson’s and Crick’s ad hoc that turned out to be right isn’t applicable with historical ad hocs. Note the example Schick and Vaughn give (which is also in Copi):
Theory 1: The earth is flat.
Theory 2: The earth is round.
Evidence from observation: If earth were flat all parts of ship would shrink from view at same rate; instead the bottom parts disappear before top—therefore earth is round.
Ad hoc hypothesis: What makes the lower part disappear first is atmospheric refraction called the zetetic law of perspective.
This move in response to adverse evidence was ad hoc, not simply because it was after the fact, but because it introduced a new concept that had no support outside defending the flat-earth theory and was untestable and unfalsifiable in that day. By implication it challenged a background theory that light travels in a straight line, but the ad hoc part was the invention of an untestable and unfalsifiable theory or explanation (although Copi says it was potentially testable and therefore should be placed in the first category mentioned above).
Note also that at the time this ad hoc was issued, the inventor (Parallax) had a degree of plausibility. To Parallax, common sense said the earth was flat and, since that is so obviously true, there had to be another explanation for the observations. This is also true of vitamin C analogy you quoted. The assumption that vitamin C works justified the ad hoc explanation—no matter how unlikely the explanation seemed to those not sharing the assumption. This is also true for the ad hocs you have invented in response to adverse evidence for the S/R theory. Also note that round-earth advocates could not immediately disprove Parallax’s theory, which allowed the flat-earth theory to live longer than it needed to.
You quote the following from Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion of legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs:
A hypothesis threatened by recalcitrant data can often be saved by postulating entities or properties that account for the data. Such a move is legitimate if there's an independent means of verifying their existence. If there is no such means, the hypothesis is ad hoc.
Ad hoc literally means "for this case only." It's not simply that a hypothesis is designed to account for a particular phenomenon that makes it ad hoc (if that were the case, all hypotheses would be ad hoc). What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can't be verified independently of the phenomenon it's supposed to explain.
Then comment--
They are talking about a scientific hypothesis which is warranted by evidence and reasoning and is open to verification. It’s not merely an opinion. Let’s call that Hypothesis A.
Of course they are not talking about opinion. They are talking about scientific hypotheses—good and bad. The bad one’s that no longer have any force or basis might be called opinions in a loose way. But once an opinion is formulated into a hypothesis or argument, it’s no longer just an opinion. T. Edward Damer explains:
Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between an argument and the expression of a personal opinion. They use the words “argument” and “opinion” interchangeably. … When students criticize an argument by saying of its conclusion something like, “Well, that’s just his (or her) opinion,” I remind them that an opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is no longer “just an opinion.” It may not be a very good argument, but it is no longer “just an opinion”; it is just a bad argument. All claims, even those that are the conclusions of arguments, are, of course, still opinions. The question is whether they are supported opinions or unsupported ones. An argument is a supported opinion. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 12)
Hypothesis A is then challenged with counter evidence which is open to verification also..that's very important, otherwise the counter would simply be an opinion. Let’s call that Counter B. Usually that’s where you come in... you counter with what you perceive as evidence but it’s not evidence open to verification. It’s your subjective opinion for example that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible. It’s your subjective opinion that to refer to the concept “lost tribes” one must include the myth, it’s your subjective opinion that M.F. never existed, and the list goes on.
The next step a counter is made to counter B in order to maintain Hypothesis A. It is fallacious ad hoc if that counter argues irrationally (without evidence or good reasoning) by changing the background assumptions so that counter B’s evidence can no longer be rationally employed against the Hypothesis A.
This is nearly unintelligible. (by the way, I put a lot of unnecessary time in just deciphering your crabbed prose.) You now seem to change your approach. It’s not about legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs; it’s now about subjective opinion. Your position is really getting convoluted. Let me finish this thought for you, because all you have done is insinuate such is the case without actually going through the steps. If you recall, I already did this in a previous post:
Step 1 – S/R theory postulates MS was used in production of the Book of Mormon, which is open to falsification.
Step 2 – Mormon witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, testify that no MS was used and that the translation was performed with Joseph Smith’s head in hat.
Step 3- The witnesses either lied, or were part of the conspiracy, or didn’t want to know the truth, or were fooled by Joseph Smith’s occasional demonstrations, or all the time with a trick hat. These can be seen as unfalsifiable ad hoc responses to counter-evidence, or as adjustments in background theory that once assumed a rewrite of Spalding’s MS without witnesses.
Step 4- I’m therefore justified in accusing a certain Spalding advocate of inventing ad hocs to escape adverse evidence.
Note that Step two is not unsupported opinion, but unlike your trick hat response is supported by evidence. Verification has no meaning in this context. It’s not my opinion, it’s based on evidence—eyewitness testimony--analysis of the evidence (which we went through), and argument. The same is true for “lost tribes”, to which you responded with ad hoc definitions and extended speculation about what Spalding could have written. I told you fantasy is not evidence. Ben’s and Glenn’s interpretation was grounded in defining the term according to the cultural lexicon of the day in which the statements were given; your definition was idiosyncratic and unsupported. You can go through the same steps above if you like, and it will show that your claim that the Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on is challenged by their mention of “ten tribes”, and that your attempt to save them is ad hoc and without foundation.
Looking at what happens in the case between S/R advocates and you Dan, is that you object to a claim or hypothesis that we make. The evidence is often open to subjective interpretation..because that's the nature of historical evidence..it's not the fault of S/R advocates or Smith alone. Then you counter, but not with objective verifiable evidence which confutes, no instead you counter with evidence or reasoning that you assert should be accepted as fact. When we don’t accept what you assert …you resort to an accusation of ad hoc fallacy.
That’s not a true characterization of what’s been going. The initial Spalding claim is founded on testimony, which by itself is incomplete, so immediately speculation and conspiracy theory began to proliferate into a complex theory. The way the conspiracy theory has been managed (without actual evidence), it’s a magical agent explaining and explaining away major portions of the evidence. That’s verges on the irrational, and conspiracy in this instance substitutes for gods and ghosts. This is not the normal situation in historiography. Nonetheless, you state that historical evidence is “open to subjective interpretation”, then attempt to diminish counter-evidence by implying that it’s not “objective verifiable evidence which confutes.” This betrays a basic ignorance of what happens in historical analysis. It also implies that all historical interpretations are mere opinions and carry the same warrant and historical weight. I hope that’s not what you mean, because that would be relativism. I’m not accusing anyone of ad hoc fallacy because they don’t accept my counter-evidence, but because they actually are committing it. I’m attempting to get them to deal more honestly with the sources. If you can’t use the trick-hat theory, then you will have to face the full force of eyewitness testimony.
In short in this discussion the rules according to Dan are that only Dan gets to decide what is true and what isn’t. What Dan says is true must be accepted as evidence and any counter to that is labeled ad hoc fallacy.
Why the ad hominem? Don’t be silly. You know I didn’t invent this discussion of ad hoc maneuvering against counter-evidence.
Let’s look at an example...the missing M.F. You accuse S/R advocates of ad hoc fallacy to suggest that Hurlbut ever had M.F. and may have sold it.
[1] S/R claim: MF existed
[2] Dan: The Book of Mormon witnesses say Smith didn’t use any manuscript so their say so should be accepted as fact and their say so overrules S/R witnesses. MF doesn’t physically exist therefore it never existed.
[3] S/R position: While MF. does not exist physically there are still plenty of good warrants to assume it did. MF hasn't simply been fabricated absent evidence. For example Hurlbut stopped in Palmyra to request the newspaper editor to print that he had obtained what he had set out for and they did print that information. The Conneaut witnesses testimony, R. Patterson testimony, Amity witnesses testimony, are all evidence. That spalding was a known writere writer, that he had brought a manuscript to a printer written in biblical style..are some of the warrants.
[4] Dan: You are committing an ad hoc fallacy, you have no verifiable evidence and you are simply making the argument to save your theory.
This is kind of a comical reconstruction of the debate, which makes me question if you understand the issues involved. You have more than one thread of argument mixed together, and no clearly developed idea. I numbered the steps for comment, with the strands of argument labeled [a], [b].
[1a] To make sense with the next step, this should read--“S/R claim: MF was used in the production of the Book of Mormon.”
[1b] “S/R claim: MF existed” is vague and packed with several complicating issues, which S/R advocates have the burden to prove. This should be reworded.
[Second Amendment] “Dan: The Book of Mormon witnesses say Smith didn’t use any manuscript.” The rest (“so their say so should be accepted as fact”) is hyperbole and violates the rule of charity, which stipulates that “if a participant’s argument is reformatted by an opponent, it should be in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer” (Damer, 5). You know that my handling of the eyewitness testimony is not naïve or uncritical. Your use of the Spalding witnesses, however, is. This is legitimate counter-evidence to [1a]. The part about “and their say so overrules S/R witnesses” is better stated as—“Since Mormon testimony is less problematic than the 20-year-old memories of the Spalding witnesses, explanations involving memory studies are relevant.”
[2b] “Dan: MF doesn’t physically exist therefore it never existed.” The last sentence is a misrepresentation of my position. While a missing MS is consistent with there never having been a MF, it’s not proof of it. However, it is a problem for those who suggest Hurlbut recovered two MSS, which leads them to speculate ad hoc that Hurlbut sold MF to the Mormons.
[3a] Nothing.
[3b] “S/R position: While MF. does not exist physically there are still plenty of good warrants to assume it did. MF hasn't simply been fabricated absent evidence. For example Hurlbut stopped in Palmyra to request the newspaper editor to print that he had obtained what he had set out for and they did print that information. The Conneaut witnesses testimony, R. Patterson testimony, Amity witnesses testimony, are all evidence. That spalding was a known writere writer, that he had brought a manuscript to a printer written in biblical style..are some of the warrants.” I never made the argument above [2b], and I never said there weren’t warrants for believing MF existed. Each piece of evidence has to be examined and given relative historical weight. That’s a different discussion than the one you are formulating here. This isn’t in response to [2b], but rather should be the beginning of the discussion in [1b], as part of the burden of proof. To which opponents can respond. None of which is reflected in step [2].
[4] “Dan: You are committing an ad hoc fallacy, you have no verifiable evidence and you are simply making the argument to save your theory.” This is a non sequitur. This conclusion doesn’t follow from the preceding.
Notice it’s Dan who gets to decide which evidence gets accepted or not.
As I said, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy or logic or historical methodology.
But the facts are Dan that you are not offering verifiable evidence yourself. The nature of historical claims is that much is open to subjective interpretation..and it's no surprise that both theories have evidence non verifiable. Your counters to S/R claims/theory/speculation is not the sort of counter the authors you cite were talking about. They are talking about counters which are verifable evidence, not merely opinion or subjective interpretation of evidence. So you haven’t falsified a thing.
Your statement about “verifiable” is an attempt to apply scientific language to historiography. This is a red herring. Everyone knows history isn’t science, but that doesn’t mean that some historical reconstructions are not better than others. It’s not just people expressing opinions; it’s the marshalling of arguments and evidence, according to certain standards. Historians talk about ad hocs too, not just scientists. You have only shown that you don’t know what an ad hoc is, and therefore are doomed to repeat this mistake. You mentioned warrants above; we are attempting to determine who has the best. Both can’t be right. That can’t be done when you want to short-circuit the process by avoiding counter-evidence with ad hoc rationalizations.
So, because there are good warrants to assume M.F existed, any speculation on what Hurlbut might have done with it is not ad hoc fallacy in light of the fact that your counter was not evidence which objectively proved MF didn't exist.
I never made such an argument. You postulated the MS existed and was recovered by Hurlbut. This begged the question of what happened to the MS, and why Hurlbut didn’t use it? The question was so obvious no one had to ask it. This forced S/R advocates to invent an ad hoc about selling it to the Mormons. So don’t blame me for a problem you created.
This whole business with ad hoc fallacy is an illogical means you are employing to justify your assertions and declarations of what you think should be accepted as true and what shouldn’t.
As I keep saying, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy. Historians talk about it all the time.
That you bring up the trick hat thing as an ad hoc fallacy is ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous that you even brought up the trick-hat theory to distract and delay consideration of the eyewitness testimony.
The initial claim Dan doesn’t come from me it's from you. You are the claimant who is saying Smith truly dictated with his head in the hat to all the scribes the whole time. And your justification is ..' the Book of Mormon witnesses said so'. Then you like to add you’ve got some hostile witnesses for further proof.
No, Marg. As I showed time and again, the initial claim is that a MS was used by Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. The counter-evidence is the eyewitness testimony about the head in a hat. Your counter to that is the trick-hat theory, which is ad hoc—plainly and simply.
This is not the kind of hypothesis the authors were talking about. This is not a claim supported by verifiable evidence. This is a claim which is unverifiable and in addition extraordinary. So this claim of yours can simply be countered it is too weak in light of the extraordinariness of the claim. It's too weak, because these witnesses had a vested interested, were motivated for personal gain, were closely related to one another..therefore their say so is insufficient evidence in order to accept an extraordinary claim that Smith for the whole process likely did as they said ‘.dictated with head in hat, elbows on knees and no other material present’.
You are repeating yourself, and still not making any sense whatsoever. You are desperately trying to find a quibble-point. You are missing a chance to improve your historical skills. We have gone over the witnesses already and found that you are hypercritical and biased against them due to their beliefs and religious experiences and your own over-commitment to a theory. You sense the weakness in your handling of the witnesses, which is the reason you resorted to the trick-hat theory. You are attempting to dismiss the witnesses categorically when they represent a myriad of situations.
So, I’m not trying to to save the S/R theory...by speculating on how on a few occasions such as with Emma he might have employed a trick hat. It is you Dan trying to maintain your theory by irrationally using ad hoc fallacy to dismiss the S/R theory.
Gibberish. It’s irrational of you to make such a ludicrous statement. The trick hat would have been employed more than a few times for Emma, but for all the witnesses if we dismiss your other ad hoc theory that most of the witnesses were part of the conspiracy. Of course, your trick-hat theory was designed to save S/R theory from the implications of eyewitness testimony. I’m not irrationally using ad hoc fallacy to dismiss the S/R theory—it can’t do that. What it can do is limit the kinds of responses you can make to adverse evidence, or at the very least recognize their weakness, especially as responses in debate.
In essence you are employing faulty reasoning of the sort like ad hoc fallacy when you use the accusation of ad hoc fallacy against S/R advocates. Essentially in order to prevent counter claims to your theory you are dismissing S/R evidence and reasoning as ad hoc fallacy..when it isn't. So you are using an irrational argument to dismiss the S/R theory, for the sole purpose of saving the Smith alone theory. That sounds pretty much like ad hoc fallacy to me.
In short you are using “the accusation of ad hoc fallacy” fallaciously to save your theory.
This kind of conclusion is why it hard to take you seriously. You are saying things that sound dismissive, but in fact have no meaning at all.