However I'm a bit puzzled by the first footnote, which seems to be quite central to the reasoning in this article.
My confusion can be summarized by the following question: How can we deductively verify empirical facts? It seems that deductive process of argumentation about empirical matters essentially depends on some observational propositions, which are established on the inductive grounds.
We can verify the existence of empirically-based arguments, but the meaning of those results require more inductive reasoning. For example, if you click on the article by Tom Stafford, you'll find links to various pieces of information that can be objectively verified. Thus, we can conclude deductively that Stafford accurately portrays the evidence he used to support various arguments. However, whether we feel his conclusions are justified on the basis of said evidence is an inductive argument.
Thank you for the interesting post!
However I'm a bit puzzled by the first footnote, which seems to be quite central to the reasoning in this article.
My confusion can be summarized by the following question: How can we deductively verify empirical facts? It seems that deductive process of argumentation about empirical matters essentially depends on some observational propositions, which are established on the inductive grounds.
We can verify the existence of empirically-based arguments, but the meaning of those results require more inductive reasoning. For example, if you click on the article by Tom Stafford, you'll find links to various pieces of information that can be objectively verified. Thus, we can conclude deductively that Stafford accurately portrays the evidence he used to support various arguments. However, whether we feel his conclusions are justified on the basis of said evidence is an inductive argument.