Synthese

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 201–234 | Cite as

Patterns of abduction

Article

Abstract

This article describes abductions as special patterns of inference to the best explanation whose structure determines a particularly promising abductive conjecture (conclusion) and thus serves as an abductive search strategy (Sect. 1). A classification of different patterns of abduction is provided which intends to be as complete as possible (Sect. 2). An important distinction is that between selective abductions, which choose an optimal candidate from given multitude of possible explanations (Sects. 3–4), and creative abductions, which introduce new theoretical models or concepts (Sects. 5–7). While selective abduction has dominated the literature, creative abductions are rarely discussed, although they are essential in science. The article introduces several kinds of creative abductions, such as theoretical model abduction, common cause abduction and statistical factor analysis, and illustrates them by various real case examples. It is suggested to demarcate scientifically fruitful abductions from purely speculative abductions by the criterion of causal unification (Sect. 7.1).

Keywords

Abduction Inference to the best explanation Common-cause-unification Disposition Theoretical concepts Scientific discovery Analogy Factor analysis Realism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aliseda A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Dordrecht, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong D.M. (1983). What is a law of nature?. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong D.M. (1969). Dispositions as causes. Analysis 30, 23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes E. (1995). Inference to the loveliest explanation. Synthese 103, 251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bortz, J. (1985). Lehrbuch der Statistik. Berlin: Springer [6th ed. 2005].Google Scholar
  6. Bratko I. (1986). Prolog programming for artificial intelligence. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publ. CompGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan B., et al. (1969). Heuristic dendral. Machine Intelligence 4, 209–254Google Scholar
  8. Carnap R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In: Feigl H., Scriven M. (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. I. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, pp. 38–76Google Scholar
  9. Chisholm, R. M. (1966). Theory of knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [3rd ed. 1988].Google Scholar
  10. Console L., et al. (1991). On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 1, 661–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Regt H.W. (2006). Wesley Salmon’s complementarity thesis: Causality and Unificationism Reconciled?. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20, 129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford, Oxford Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Day T., Kincaid H. (1994). Putting inference to the best explanation in its place. Synthese 98, 271–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ducasse J. (1974). A critical examination of the belief in a life after death. Springfield, Charles and ThomasGoogle Scholar
  15. Earman J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  16. Earman J. (1992). Bayes or bust?. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Flach P., Kakas A. (eds) (2000). Abduction and induction. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  18. Fumerton R.A. (1980). Induction and reasoning to the best explanation. Philosophy of Science 47, 589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabbay D., Woods J. (2005). The reach of abduction: Insight and trial. A practical logic of cognitive systems, Vol 2. Amsterdam, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  20. Gemes K. (1993). Hypothetico-deductivism, content, and the natural axiomatization of theories. Philosophy of Science 54, 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentner D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glymour C. (1981). Theory and evidence. Princeton, Princeton Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Glymour C., Spirtes P., Scheines R. (1991). Causal inference. Erkenntnis 35, 151–189Google Scholar
  24. Grice, H. P. (1991). Logic and conversation. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305–315). New York: Oxford Univ. Press [2nd print].Google Scholar
  25. Haig B. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research 40, 303–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halonen I., Hintikka J. (2005). Towards a theory of the process of explanation. Synthese 143, 5–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanson N.R. (1961). Is there a logic of discovery?. In: Feigl H., Maxwell G. (eds) Current issues in the philosophy of science. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 20–35Google Scholar
  28. Harman G.H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review 74, 173–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hintikka J. (1998). What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society 34, 503–533Google Scholar
  30. Hintikka J., Halonen I., Mutanen A. (1999). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In: Hintikka J. (eds) Inquiry as inquiry. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 47–90Google Scholar
  31. Hobbs J.R., et al. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence Journal 63, 69–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holyak K., Thagard P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 13, 295–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howson C. (2000). Hume’s problem: Induction and the justification of belief. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Howson C., Urbach P. (1996). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (2nd ed). Chicago, Open CourtGoogle Scholar
  35. Josephson J., Josephson S. (eds) (1994). Abductive inference. New York, Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Kitcher P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science 48, 507–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kline P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhn T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Chicago Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuipers T.A.F. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuipers T.A.F. (2004). Inference to the best theory, rather than inference to the best explanation. In: Stadler F. (eds) Induction and deduction in the sciences. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 25–51Google Scholar
  41. Ladyman J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Lakatos I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 91–195Google Scholar
  43. Langley P., et al. (1987). Scientific discovery. Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Lipton P. (1991). Inference to the best explanation. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Magnani L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  46. Mill J.St. (1865). System of logic (6th ed). London, Parker, Son, and BournGoogle Scholar
  47. Molnar G. (1999). Are dispositions reducible?. Philosophical Quarterly 49, 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moser P.K. (1989). Knowledge and evidence. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Mumford S. (1998). Dispositions. Oxford, Oxford Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Niiniluoto I. (1999). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 66, S436–S451Google Scholar
  51. Octoby D.W., et al. (1999). Modern chemistry. Orlando, Saunders College PublGoogle Scholar
  52. Otte R. (1981). A critique of Suppes’ theory of probabilistic causality. Synthese 48, 167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pap A. (1978). Disposition concepts and extensional logic. In: Tuomela R. (eds) Dispositions. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 27–54Google Scholar
  54. Paul G. (1993). Approaches to abductive reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 7, 109–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearl J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  56. Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In Peirce (CP) 2.619–2.644.Google Scholar
  57. Peirce, C. S. (1903). Lectures on pragmatism. In Peirce (CP) 5.14–5.212.Google Scholar
  58. Peirce, C. S. (CP). In C. Hartshorne P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers (pp. 1931–1935). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pollock J. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Maryland, Rowman & LittlefiedGoogle Scholar
  60. Prior E.W., Pargetter R., Jackson F. (1982). Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly 19, 251–257Google Scholar
  61. Quine W.v.O. (1974). Roots of reference. Open Court, La SalleGoogle Scholar
  62. Reichenbach H. (1956). The direction of time. Berkeley, Univ. of California PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Ridley M. (1993). Evolution. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  64. Rock I. (1984). Perception. New York, Scientific American BooksGoogle Scholar
  65. Russell S.J., Norvig P. (eds) (1995). Artificial intelligence. Englewood-Cliffs, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  66. Salmon W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, Princeton Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Schurz G. (1991). Relevant deduction. Erkenntnis 35, 391–437Google Scholar
  68. Schurz G. (1996). The role of negation in non-monotonic logic. In: Wansing H. (eds) Negation. Berlin, W. de Gruyter, pp. 197–231Google Scholar
  69. Schurz G. (2001). What is ‘normal’? An evolution-theoretic foundation of normic laws. Philosophy of Science 28, 476–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schurz G., Lambert K. (1994). Outline of a theory of scientific understanding. Synthese 101/1: 65–120Google Scholar
  71. Sebeok, T. A., & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1980). `You know my method’. A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. Bloomington, IN: Gaslight Publ.Google Scholar
  72. Shelley C. (1996). Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science 63, 278–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sober E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. Boulder, Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  74. Sperber D., et al. (eds) (1995). Causal cognition. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  75. Swinburne, R. (1979). The existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press [revised 2nd ed. 2004].Google Scholar
  76. Thagard P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  77. Thagard P. (1992). Conceptual revolution. Princeton, Princeton Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press [reprint 1990].Google Scholar
  79. Walton D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, Univ. of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations