> our interactions with the world are still built around the same structure of hypothesis (based on prior beliefs), induction, evidence, and revision.
This is called abductive reasoning, and in terms of formal, professional methodology it's most commonly associated with medicine (process of diagnosing an illness) and the law (procedural rules of evidence can be trivially formalized in terms abductive logic[1]). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
It's also quite obviously at the core of the scientific method, though the scientific method implies additional processes (peer review) and rules (emphasizes disproving the hypothesis; in the law it's primarily the defense tasked with disproving the hypothesis).
[1] See Terence Anderson, David Schum, and William Twining, "Analysis Of Evidence". The fact that common law rules of evidence organically evolved into a system that adheres so rigorously to a formal logical system is itself fascinating. And while arguing that the scientific method acts like a virus is a little... out there... suffice it to say there's definitely something to the notion that methodological systems reflecting abductive logic are natural and inevitable. I had the good fortune to take Dr. Schum's class at GMU Law School, though I spent most of my time futzing around with scripts for building my evidence graphs. Some of the rules of evidence are designed to keep the evidence graph acyclic, which is not something you learn in law school (outside Schum's and GMU's elective class), but is obvious to a computer programmer, such as myself, or anyone else with math or engineering experience. Dr. Schum was professor emeritus of the engineering school, but designed and taught his class on evidence at the law school.
This is called abductive reasoning, and in terms of formal, professional methodology it's most commonly associated with medicine (process of diagnosing an illness) and the law (procedural rules of evidence can be trivially formalized in terms abductive logic[1]). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
It's also quite obviously at the core of the scientific method, though the scientific method implies additional processes (peer review) and rules (emphasizes disproving the hypothesis; in the law it's primarily the defense tasked with disproving the hypothesis).
[1] See Terence Anderson, David Schum, and William Twining, "Analysis Of Evidence". The fact that common law rules of evidence organically evolved into a system that adheres so rigorously to a formal logical system is itself fascinating. And while arguing that the scientific method acts like a virus is a little... out there... suffice it to say there's definitely something to the notion that methodological systems reflecting abductive logic are natural and inevitable. I had the good fortune to take Dr. Schum's class at GMU Law School, though I spent most of my time futzing around with scripts for building my evidence graphs. Some of the rules of evidence are designed to keep the evidence graph acyclic, which is not something you learn in law school (outside Schum's and GMU's elective class), but is obvious to a computer programmer, such as myself, or anyone else with math or engineering experience. Dr. Schum was professor emeritus of the engineering school, but designed and taught his class on evidence at the law school.
Alas, it seems Dr. Schum passed away last year: https://volgenau.gmu.edu/news/571991