tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8980466123578079974..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists Demonstrate Profound Influence of Natural Selection in Human EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4061745263211215472013-07-04T22:28:38.702-07:002013-07-04T22:28:38.702-07:00Jeff: J: There is no such knowable thing as a &quo...Jeff: J: There is no such knowable thing as a "best" explanation if there is no such thing as an explanation that is more plausible than another. Why is this hard for you?<br /><br />Why do you keep ignoring the specific differentiations I've made regarding this same claim you keep making?<br /><br />plausible |ˈplôzəbəl|<br />adjective<br />(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable: a plausible explanation | it seems plausible that one of two things may happen.<br /><br />Again, probability isn't valid unless you know all of the possible outcomes and the process is random. So, it's unclear how you can calculate the probability of UCA in a way which fits this aspect of definition. <br /><br />Nor is there *positive* evidence *for* anything because any argument argues from a less specific proposition to a more specific proposition. Modus Ponens begs the question. <br /><br />See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa%27s_Trilemma" rel="nofollow">Agrippa's Trilemma</a>.<br /><br />Jeff: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that my view could be wrong, though it hasn't been proven wrong or even proven contrary to how people actually explain and why they believe they can predict.<br /><br />It's been refuted by arguments by Popper, Bartley, etc. <br /><br />But by all means, please formulate a "principle of induction" that defined in such a way that it can be reliable be applied to provide guidance, in practice. <br /><br />01. Sense data<br />02. ???????<br />03. Inductive conclusion<br /><br />Fill in 02. with something other than conjecture and refutation. <br /><br />Jeff: But your view is literally sheer non-sense. You question every thing and then turn around and talk about "best" explanations as if that's even knowable after considering all premises equally a-plausible. You're UTTERLY confused.<br /><br />Which is a blatant misrepresentation of what I've presented here, over and over again. Again, the best explanation is the one that has withstood the most criticism. <br /><br />Is there some reason you omitted this?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68567997522173182152013-07-04T10:28:33.253-07:002013-07-04T10:28:33.253-07:00Scott: No one has observed the core of the sun, bu...Scott: No one has observed the core of the sun, but our current, best explanation is that ...<br /><br />J: There is no such knowable thing as a "best" explanation if there is no such thing as an explanation that is more plausible than another. Why is this hard for you?<br /><br />I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that my view could be wrong, though it hasn't been proven wrong or even proven contrary to how people actually explain and why they believe they can predict. But your view is literally sheer non-sense. You question every thing and then turn around and talk about "best" explanations as if that's even knowable after considering all premises equally a-plausible. You're UTTERLY confused.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76977952180242706802013-07-03T10:40:26.487-07:002013-07-03T10:40:26.487-07:00Jeff: I'll try to find time to respond to all ...Jeff: I'll try to find time to respond to all your non-sense... <br /><br />If it's non-sense, then you might want to stop quoting Popper, as he didn't think we could use observations to prove anything is true or probable either. <br /><br />Jeff: How do you change CH's mind when you don't believe his current views are less plausible/probable than your own? Alternatively, if you're not trying to change his mind, what are you trying to do?<br /><br />So, your strategy is to not even acknowledge the criticism I've presented at all?<br /><br />I'm pointing out that it's a unreasonable, unproductive and unnecessary expectation. <br /><br />Again, what does the question of whether some statement is true or not have to do with the question of whether that statement can be established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made probable, grounded, supported, legitimated, etc,, based on evidence?<br /><br />How does this actually work, in practice? Please be specific<br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79072445676187811202013-07-02T02:15:20.336-07:002013-07-02T02:15:20.336-07:00jeff said:
"It there was an explanation for ...jeff said:<br /><br />"It there was an explanation for naturalistic UCA, it might be scientific. But no one has come up with one yet."<br /><br />If by "explanation" you mean something that is cast in stone, is proven beyond any doubt, is accepted by everyone on Earth, and will never change in any way, then you're right. However, there is a lot of evidence that supports universal common ancestry (at least here on Earth).<br /><br />"And in the meanwhile, everyone talks as if biological function is teleological (even UCA'ists)."<br /><br />I wouldn't agree that everyone does so but I notice that too sometimes and in some cases it could be because the speaker/writer has an underlying teleological/religious belief and/or agenda, but I also think that it's often because humans have a tendency to speak/write in that manner. I think that just about any creature that gets parental/family/group care would have the same tendency if they could speak or write. <br /><br />From the moment of birth we humans are taken care of and directed by someone and as we grow we see that there are many other people taking care of and directing us, such as doctors, nurses, cops, politicians, teachers, babysitters, friends, the media, and a long list of others. <br /><br />Life can be scary, especially to some people, and some people create or adopt something imaginary to take care of and direct them. Insecurity is a bitch. <br /><br />We're also programmed from birth to see and think that most things are 'made', 'invented', 'designed', or 'created' by something or someone. Food is 'grown, processed, packaged, shipped, shopped for, prepared, cooked, and served', houses and cars and rockets ships and many other things are 'built', and just about everything that we want or use is 'manufactured'. Plus, we're told by parents, teachers, politicians, etc., that we have a purpose and that we're working toward some goal or at least should be. <br /><br />We humans also see nature (including other humans) as vast, complex, often scary and threatening or even deadly, and hard to understand or control, and many people want to believe that they have a permanent, full time protector and/or that there's a teleological/divine reason for the negatives of life. <br /><br />Even if or when people speak/write in a teleological manner, it doesn't support or prove that any so-called god that anyone has ever thought up actually exists. <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47184016471525602802013-07-02T01:15:15.959-07:002013-07-02T01:15:15.959-07:00jeff, do you believe that the christian god create...jeff, do you believe that the christian god created the entire universe and that 'he' separately and specially created 'man' in 'his' image? <br /><br />Do you believe that the christian god did all that in six 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago?<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75579740687618438242013-07-01T18:21:00.399-07:002013-07-01T18:21:00.399-07:00How do you change CH's mind when you don't...How do you change CH's mind when you don't believe his current views are less plausible/probable than your own? Alternatively, if you're not trying to change his mind, what are you trying to do? Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6471071217726625422013-07-01T18:12:38.910-07:002013-07-01T18:12:38.910-07:00Scott: Do you always keep misquoting people?
J: ...Scott: Do you always keep misquoting people? <br /><br />J: I'll try to find time to respond to all your non-sense, but seriously, Scott, what difference does any belief make to the PROPRIETY of any voluntary human action/thought if NO proposition can be known to be more probable/plausible than any other? You're a radical skeptic, pure and simple. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70854034243115161682013-07-01T18:09:28.407-07:002013-07-01T18:09:28.407-07:00V: For instance how many SA conceptions are there?...V: For instance how many SA conceptions are there? You are the expert, share your knowledge of SA conceptions.<br /><br />J: The number of SA and UCA scenarios are so large that it matters not what the numbers are. Both are rendered UTTERLY improbable on those grounds alone. That's why that whole aspect of the debate is absolutely irrelevant.<br /><br />V: Perhaps you might expound of the non consistent conceptions of SA, if hose are fewer.<br /><br />J: There are none if you allow for uncaused events and/or counter-inductive views of history. <br /><br />V: Blindly,hardly. Without any alternative explanation it is the most reasonable.<br /><br />J: Naturalistic UCA isn't reasonable because it's inexplicable without positing millions of ad-hoc hypotheses, which no one yet has dared to attempt to articulate.<br /><br />V: Do you have a specific alternative? Oh no that's right,you don't. <br /><br />J: That's right. I don't have a specific one, and you don't have a specific one. You're just confused enough to think you do, whereas I'm not confused at all.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5844789024450912013-07-01T15:41:31.672-07:002013-07-01T15:41:31.672-07:00Jeff, again, you're making the same mistake ou...Jeff, again, you're making the same mistake outlined <a href="http://fieldlines.org/2013/02/03/karl-popper-on-evolution-part-1-historical-science/" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />Specifically, the quote you keep referencing was from 1963, which was before Popper changed his mind regarding the historical sciences. <br /><br /><i>Like all authors pushing this rhetoric, they don’t quite realize what has to be given up if we were to stop assuming the past is like the future. Therefore, they speak about ‘singularities’ as though any event beyond direct perception is off-limits for scientific inquiry – misunderstanding that the entire program of scientific inquiry is to guess patterns to predict one’s future perceptions!<br /><br />Popper is not in this group. Rather, he took on the distinction, not for the purpose of straying from methodological naturalism, but to highlight that ‘historical science’ often has different goals from the main aim of our inquiries:<br /><br /><b>“…[W]hile the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements.”</b><br /><br />Out of context, this might seem to be pushing a philosophy of science that is somewhat bias towards theoretical physics. For, if we suppose that only universal hypotheses qualify as ‘scientific’, then we are left with the conclusion that most other fields (from archeology to zoology) are not ‘science’.<br /><br />This was never what Popper was advocating, as he clarified in 1981:<br /><br /><b>It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. </b><br /><br />Instead, Popper’s motivation for categorizing evolution in a group he defined as ‘historical science’ was in to argue against a type of thinking he called ‘historicism‘ – the supposition that it is possible to prophecize the future historical developments of humanity.</i><br /><br />Do you always keep misquoting people? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35446679423057135542013-06-30T20:02:54.183-07:002013-06-30T20:02:54.183-07:00Jeff,
this is so simple it's mindboggling. Pop...<b>Jeff,<br />this is so simple it's mindboggling. Popper says organisms have changed and are changing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the VAST MAJORITY of ways of conceiving of SA's is consistent with that claim and what little predictability is entailed in current theory</b><br /><br />Never claimed that unknown ways of conceiving of something could not be consistent with Popper's observation. For instance how many SA conceptions are there? You are the expert, share your knowledge of SA conceptions.Perhaps you might expound of the non consistent conceptions of SA, if hose are fewer.<br /><br /><b>Let me help you, here, V. Evolution/change INCLUDES cyclical change that doesn't amount to much plasticity over time. It takes MILLIONS of ad-hoc hypotheses to IMPLY what you believe blindly.</b><br /><br /> Blindly,hardly. Without any alternative explanation it is the most reasonable. Do you have a specific alternative? Oh no that's right,you don't. Just lots of potentially conflicting scenarios<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63686072879685825532013-06-30T12:32:30.538-07:002013-06-30T12:32:30.538-07:00Let me help you, here, V. Evolution/change INCLUDE...Let me help you, here, V. Evolution/change INCLUDES cyclical change that doesn't amount to much plasticity over time. It takes MILLIONS of ad-hoc hypotheses to IMPLY what you believe blindly.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39216592633549447142013-06-30T12:27:27.506-07:002013-06-30T12:27:27.506-07:00V, this is so simple it's mindboggling. Popper...V, this is so simple it's mindboggling. Popper says organisms have changed and are changing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the VAST MAJORITY of ways of conceiving of SA's is consistent with that claim and what little predictability is entailed in current theory.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87612078879469028002013-06-30T11:28:42.719-07:002013-06-30T11:28:42.719-07:00Jeff,
No. I want people who have NOTHING to expect...<b>Jeff,<br />No. I want people who have NOTHING to expect NOTHING of others. The alternative is unfair hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong. I know it will never happen. So I'll just keep pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy of your position. It's the next best thing</b><br /><br />Relax,buddy.you claimed there were " lots of SA scenarios", I asked which ones exactly. Don't get upset if someone asks you to back up your own claim. You could just say it is super secret and we can only talk about the one theory which actually put forward a theory.<br /><br /><b>UCA and SA are mutually-exclusive, by definition.</b><br /><br />You keep making claims about SA, I say I can come up with one that is not mutually exclusive.<br /><br /><br /><b> But neither is inconsistent with Popper's claim. Indeed, the vast majority of SA scenarios are not inconsistent with Popper's claim.</b><br /><br />We agree,especially since is off limits to inquire what exactly those SA scenarios posit.We just have to take your word for ir<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44700398236223572612013-06-30T09:57:46.486-07:002013-06-30T09:57:46.486-07:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
It not only IS the truth, but...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />It not only IS the truth, but the non-moronic UCA'ists already HAVE admitted it.</i><br /><br />LOL! Poor ignorant LFJJ. Reality scares you so badly! I bet your laundry bill for clean underwear must be staggering.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17701484391025693262013-06-30T09:38:33.786-07:002013-06-30T09:38:33.786-07:00And by the way, Moron, why don't you argue wit...And by the way, Moron, why don't you argue with Scott when he says the "scientific" epistemology can never render the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA more plausible/probable than SA? Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29114768958673266192013-06-30T09:36:23.560-07:002013-06-30T09:36:23.560-07:00No, moron. It not only IS the truth, but the non-m...No, moron. It not only IS the truth, but the non-moronic UCA'ists already HAVE admitted it.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72300129706755765492013-06-30T07:50:17.798-07:002013-06-30T07:50:17.798-07:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
You see, TWT, I wouldn't ...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />You see, TWT, I wouldn't argue if biologists said something true, like:<br /><br />"We have no idea whether what we mean by 'nested hierarchy' is the result of naturalistic UCA or not. But we're going to assume it as a working hypothesis and see if we can generate a falsifiable (by some agreed upon criteria) approach that will withstand novel observations over time. Currently our approach is non-falsifiable, as we are still in the infancy of this research project."</i><br /><br />But that's not true LFJJ. That's merely your own ignorance and stupidity manifesting itself one more time in the ridiculous things you claim.<br /><br />Reality doesn't go away just because you don't like it LFJJ.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9377599375690358352013-06-30T07:39:00.606-07:002013-06-30T07:39:00.606-07:00You see, TWT, I wouldn't argue if biologists s...You see, TWT, I wouldn't argue if biologists said something true, like:<br /><br />"We have no idea whether what we mean by 'nested hierarchy' is the result of naturalistic UCA or not. But we're going to assume it as a working hypothesis and see if we can generate a falsifiable (by some agreed upon criteria) approach that will withstand novel observations over time. Currently our approach is non-falsifiable, as we are still in the infancy of this research project."Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1714922291074694402013-06-30T07:33:47.386-07:002013-06-30T07:33:47.386-07:00TWT: At least scientists are trying to find real a...TWT: At least scientists are trying to find real answers...<br /><br />... In other words, ancestry and evolution and billions of years are so complex! I don't like complex! Complex is too much for my creationist pea-brain!<br /><br />J: We don't know that UCA is complex, because we don't know that it's possible. Indeed, we have no inductive EVIDENCE that it's possible as we do for other inferences. And neither CH nor I am arguing against research. We're arguing against lying in the name of science about what is currently known.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19391477501285746112013-06-30T07:30:24.194-07:002013-06-30T07:30:24.194-07:00J: So simple you could have thought of it yourself...J: So simple you could have thought of it yourself, to apply all the relevant reasoning, too, huh?<br /><br />V: You want me to make your argument for you?<br /><br />J: No. I want people who have NOTHING to expect NOTHING of others. The alternative is unfair hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong. I know it will never happen. So I'll just keep pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy of your position. It's the next best thing.<br /><br />V: So then I was correct when I said " exactly the same way" and depending on which "SA scenario"one adopted ,UCA and SA are not contradictory.<br /><br />J: UCA and SA are mutually-exclusive, by definition. But neither is inconsistent with Popper's claim. Indeed, the vast majority of SA scenarios are not inconsistent with Popper's claim.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27216588454969932032013-06-29T17:45:36.252-07:002013-06-29T17:45:36.252-07:00Man oh man, you sure can spew a huge load of gibbe...Man oh man, you sure can spew a huge load of gibberish, jeff. Among other things, you said:<br /><br />"Relatively few ad-hoc hypotheses may be required for the creation of SA ancestors. This is what you never stop to consider. And this is why you have NOTHING. You're merely assuming what you need to demonstrate, but can't."<br /><br />In other words, saying 'God-did-it' is so much simpler than doing science and figuring out what really happened. But wait! Why would separate ancestry (separate "creation") be any simpler to figure out or explain, from a scientific point of view? <br /><br />And you creobots are the ones who are merely assuming what you need to demonstrate, but can't. At least scientists are trying to find real answers, while you thumpers just spew lies, distortions, and gobbledegook from a mish mash of old, absurd, contradictory, impossible fairy tales from your so-called 'holy book'.<br /><br />You also said:<br /><br />"I don't have to explain the designer and his actions. I ASSUME the actions once I ASSUME the relevant motivational nature. This is all hyothetico-deductive explanation IS. It's ASSUMING postulates and then explaining/deducing therefrom. We do this in court all the time in terms of ID. You, on the other hand, can't even enumerate all the hypotheses necessary to imply that mutations generated life's diversity in the posited time-frame. You have to posit, for millions of mutations (and, therefore, sequences), certain properties having to do with possible degrees of attainable phenotypic plasticity in particular time-frames that SA'ists don't have to posit."<br /><br />In other words, ancestry and evolution and billions of years are so complex! I don't like complex! Complex is too much for my creationist pea-brain! Assuming that my imaginary sky-daddy-did-it all within six days six thousand years ago is so much simpler! Plus, it makes me feel exceptional and superior to assume that I'm 'specially created' and ain't no monkey! Praise my sky daddy!The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7305324698134349962013-06-29T15:17:54.078-07:002013-06-29T15:17:54.078-07:00Jeff,
J: So simple you could have thought of it yo...<b>Jeff,<br />J: So simple you could have thought of it yourself, to apply all the relevant reasoning, too, huh?</b><br /><br />You want me to make your argument for you? <br /><br /><b>Wrong. Popper's statement can't imply both because that would be a contradiction. It implies NEITHER</b><br /><br />So then I was correct when I said " exactly the same way" and depending on which "SA scenario"one adopted ,UCA and SA are not contradictory.<br /><br />I did wonder why you asked if Popper's statement " implied" UCA rather than was consistent with it. I guess I got my answer.<br /><br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41747511701653197932013-06-29T12:26:45.881-07:002013-06-29T12:26:45.881-07:00Jeff: THAT we know is a NATURAL belief. As such, i...Jeff: THAT we know is a NATURAL belief. As such, it's PART of foundationalism, which you deny.<br /><br />Because we are fallible, it's unclear how we could know if something is a basic belief or not. For example, one only need look at the history of foundationalism and see it is littered with such errors. <br /><br />Furthermore, I've already provided an example of how we can rationally criticize a basic belief using empirical tests: <a href="http://www.moillusions.com/2007/10/twin-tables-optical-illusion.html" rel="nofollow">the illusion of twin tables</a>.<br /><br />Despite the fact that the illusion returns when the measuring lines are removed, we need not uncritically accept that the tables are different sizes. <br /><br />The claim that any specific belief is the sense that it cannot be rationally criticized is anti-rationalScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52856330562943040272013-06-29T12:01:56.390-07:002013-06-29T12:01:56.390-07:00Jeff: The mere naming what you choose to believe &...Jeff: The mere naming what you choose to believe "knowledge" or "science" is fair for BOTH the gander and the goose. You constantly prove too little or too much in your arguments.<br /><br />I see you haven't read the referenced article yet. <br /><br /><i>The theory of knowledge is a tightrope that is the only path from A to B, with a long, hard drop for anyone who steps off on one side into “knowledge is impossible, progress is an illusion” or on the other side into “I must be right, or at least probably right.” Indeed, infallibilism and nihilism are twins. Both fail to understand that mistakes are not only inevitable, they are correctable (fallibly). Which is why they both abhor institutions of substantive criticism and error correction, and denigrate rational thought as useless or fraudulent. They both justify the same tyrannies. They both justify each other.</i><br /><br />This is the false dichotomy I'm referring to. <br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76747699679992753172013-06-29T11:12:17.418-07:002013-06-29T11:12:17.418-07:00Jeff: It's perfectly clear that explanation HA...Jeff: It's perfectly clear that explanation HAS to have finality to it if explanation exists at all.<br /><br />There you have it folks. Jeff's rejection of evolution is based on his very narrow view of epistemology, which has been refuted at length by Popper, etc. <br /><br />Nor has he presented a "principle of induction" that we can follow, step by step, to reliably obtain guidance using observations alone. Apparently, we use induction because we've induced that we use it, which is circular. <br /><br />Since I'm the one saying that induction doesn't work, I would be unable to present such a series of steps that represented induction. That would be your job. <br /><br />What we have so far is…. <br /><br />01. Sense data<br /> 02. ????<br /> 03. Inductive conclusions<br /><br />Fill in the blank with something other than conjecture and criticism.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com