Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 913–945 | Cite as

Let Us Investigate! Dynamic Conjecture-Making as the Formal Logic of Abduction

  • Minghui MaEmail author
  • Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Article

Abstract

We present a dynamic approach to Peirce’s original construal of abductive logic as a logic of conjecture making, and provide a new decidable, contraction-free and cut-free proof system for the dynamic logic of abductive inferences with neighborhood semantics. Our formulation of the dynamic logic of abduction follows the philosophical and scientific track that led Peirce to his late, post-1903 characterization of abductive conclusions as investigands, namely invitations to investigate propositions conjectured at the level of pre-beliefs.

Keywords

Abduction Peirce Scientific discovery Dynamic logic Neighborhood semantics Conjecture making Pre-belief 

References

  1. 1.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L.S., Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In Gilboa, I. (Ed.) Proceedings of TARK, (Vol. 98 pp. 43–56).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltag, A., Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M. (2005). Algebra and sequent calculus for epistemic actions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 126, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, A. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In Proceedings of 7th LOFT, Texts in Logic and Games 3 (pp. 13–60). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellucci, F., & Pietarinen, A.-V. (2016). The iconic moment: towards a Peircean theory of scientific imagination and abductive reasoning. In Pombo, O., Nepomuceno, A., Redmond, J. (Eds.) Epistemology, Knowledge, and the Impact of Interaction (pp. 463–481). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring logical dynamics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Benthem, J., & Smets, S. (2015). Dynamic logics of belief change. In van Ditmarsch, H., Halpern, J., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (Eds.) Handbook of Epistemic Logic (pp. 299–368). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campos, D. (2011). On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 180, 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chellas, B. (1980). Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Dordrecht : Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabbay, D.M., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction. Insight and trial. Amsterdam : Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goble, L. (1974). Gentzen systems for modal logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic Epistemology. Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Indrzejczak, A. (2005). Sequent calculi for monotonic modal logics. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 34(3), 151–164.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lavendhomme, R., & Lucas, T. (2000). Sequent calculi and decision procedures for weak modal systems. Studia Logica, 65, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ma, M., & Pietarinen, A.-V. (2015). A dynamic approach to Peirce’s interrogative construal of abductive logic. IFCoLog Journal of Logic and Applications, 3, 73–104.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magnani, L. (2009). Abductive cognition: the epistemological and Eco-cognitive dimensions of hypothetical reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mcauliffe, W.H.B. (2015). How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation?. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 51, 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discoveries: the importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paavola, S. (2006). Hansonian and Harmanian abduction as models of discovery. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park, W. (2017). Abduction in context: the conjectural dynamics of scientific reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peirce, C.S. (1958). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols. In Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., Burks, A.W. (Eds.) Cited as CP followed by volume and paragraph number (pp. 1931–1966). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peirce, C.S. Manuscripts and Letters in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1967, and in The Peirce Papers: A supplementary catalogue, Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society. 7:37–57, 1971. Cited as R or R L, followed by manuscript number and, when available, page number.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pietarinen, A.-V. (2015). The science to save us from philosophy of science. Axiomathes, 25, 149–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-014-9261-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pietarinen, A.-V., & Sandu, G. (2004). IF logic, game-theoretical semantics, and philosophy of science. In Rahman, S., Gabbay, D., van Bendegem, J.P., Symons, J. (Eds.) Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science (pp. 105–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pietarinen, A.-V., & Bellucci, F. (2014). New light on Peirce’s conceptions of retroduction, deduction, and scientific reasoning. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 28(4), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2014.979667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Troelstra, A.S., & Schiwchtenberg, H. (2000). Basic proof theory. The second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wansing, H. (2002). Sequent systems for modal logics. In Gabbay, D.M., & Guenthner, F. (Eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, (Vol. 8 pp. 61–145). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    West, D., & Anderson, M. (2016). Habit: before and beyond consciousness. Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistemology and Rational Ethics (SAPERE 31). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woods, J. (2011). Recent developments in abductive logic. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 42(1), 240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and CognitionSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.Nazarbayev UniversityAstanaKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations