Abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis which would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence.Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.
The problem with the Rationalist is that he wishes to apply deductive constraints on the proposer whilst not applying them to himself. A proposer who argues abductively that, on the given evidence, something is likely to be so suddenly finds the Rationalist trying to impose a system of logic other than that employed and which is inappropriate for the situation.
This is bad science but the Rationalist denier is an old hand at this game. Moving to the particular, there is an author quoted in another post:
"...he shows how its possible for a group of people to misinterpret a laundry list as evidence for the conquest of the world - the first is likely the second unlikely ..."
To which I replied:
And of course, perfectly possible for a group of people to so inure themselves against all but a rationalist explanation, carefully selecting evidence to quote and ignoring the rest.
In the case of Atlantis, the Bimini road has an alternative explanation but is only one of many pieces of evidence - the pyramid which shone, the evidence of your eyes in Photo
The Rationalist takes the Bimini, for which there IS an alternative explanation [I included the Tasmanian link here] and extrapolates that in general to mean that ALL the evidence has an alternative. But that, of course, is just not so and is poor reasoning.
And in the case of Atlantis, there is no need to resort to such arguments, as the physical evidence is substantive to begin with. A pyramid with rooms is a pyramid with rooms. Looking at Photo 1 again, it can only be with grim determination that one could say that that walkway, where the divers are, was naturally formed.
And when we step back after it all and ask: "Well why not anyway? Why wouldn't there have been an Atlantis?" the mania to automatically and unquestioningly deny is revealed for what it is - immediate resort to an entrenched method of argument, as distinct from free-wheeling, free-spirited and open-minded enquiry, unfettered by Rationalist dogma, i.e. all explanations other than "scientific" ones are, by definition, bunkum and that non-naturalist phenomena do no exist.
Islands are known to have sunk. Why would an island not have sunk or even eight or ten of them? Look at the geological movements over the years. Why would a civilization have not sunk into the sea?
There's not even a Rationalist answer to that specific question: "Why not?" There is only the rush to "explain away". Why? The proposer finds himself cajoled into proving 'absolutely and definitively', when he need do no such thing. He abductively concluded, based on the available evidence, on his common sense and on his life experience, the most likely scenario. That's all. So when the Rationalist says:
"To prove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the natural ones is simply wrong- we know for example in your example of the 'road'..."
… the answer to him, of course, is:
"To disprove Atlantis you have to prove that every more likely explanation for these features arising- ie the man-made ones is simply wrong - we know for example in your example of all except the 'road'..." e.g. Photo 1 and the pyramid.
So far, the Rationalist has singularly failed to do that.
