On Search for Law-Like Statements as Abductive Hypotheses by Socratic Transformations

  • Mariusz UrbańskiEmail author
  • Andrzej Wiśniewski
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 8)


We define a mechanism by which abductive hypotheses having the form of law-like statements are generated. We use the Socratic transformations approach as the underlying proof method.


Erotetic logic Socratic proofs Abduction Law-like statements 


  1. Aliseda, A. (1997). Seeking explanations: Abduction in logic, philosophy of science and artificial intelligence. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
  2. Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bolotov, A., Łupkowski, P., & Urbański, M. (2006). Search and check. Problem solving by problem reduction. In A. Cader, L. Rutkowski, R. Tadeusiewicz, & J. Zurada (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and soft computing (pp. 505–510). Warszawa: Academic Publishing House EXIT.Google Scholar
  4. Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction. Insight and trial. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Gauderis, T., & Van de Putte, F. (2012). Abduction of generalizations. Theoria, 27(3), 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harman, G. (1965). Inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J. (2007). Abduction – inference, conjecture, or an answer to a question? In Socratic epistemology. Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning (pp. 38–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hintikka, J., Halonen, I., & Mutanen, A. (1999). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery (Volume 5 of Jaakko Hintikka selected papers, pp. 47–90). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Komosinski, M., Kups, A., & Urbański, M. (2012). Multi-criteria evaluation of abductive hypotheses: Towards efficient optimization in proof theory. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soft Computing (pp. 320–325). Brno: Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  10. Komosinski, M., Kups, A., Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., & Urbański, M. (2014). Identifying efficient abductive hypotheses using multi-criteria dominance relation. ACM Journal on Computational Logic, 15(4), 28:1–28:20.Google Scholar
  11. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2004). Inference to the best theory, rather than inference to the best explanation. Kinds of abduction and induction. In F. Stadler (Ed.), Induction and deduction in the sciences (pp. 25–51). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leszczyńska, D. (2007). The method of socratic proofs for normal modal propositional logics. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., Urbański, M., & Wiśniewski, A. (2013). Socratic trees. Studia Logica, 101, 959–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Magnani, L. (2004). Reasoning through doing. Epistemic mediators in scientific discovery. Journal of Applied Logic, 2, 439–450.Google Scholar
  16. Magnani, L. (2009). Abducing chances in hybrid humans as decision makers. Information Sciences, 179(11), 1628–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, M. C., & Pirri, F. (1993). First order abduction via tableau and sequent calculi. Bulletin of the IGPL, 1, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meheus, J., & Batens, D. (2006). A formal logic of abductive reasoning. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 14, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meheus, J., Verhoeven, L., Van Dyck, M., & Provijn, D. (2002). Ampliative adaptive logics and the foundation of logic-based approaches to abduction. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Logical and computational aspects of model-based reasoning (pp. 39–71). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Smullyan, R. (1995). First-order logic. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  22. Thagard, P. (1995). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking and coherence. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Thagard, P. (2007). Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In A. Feeney & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning: Cognitive, mathematical, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 226–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Urbański, M. (2003). Computing abduction with Socratic proofs. In International workshop “Problem Solving in the Sciences: Adaptive and Interrogative Perspectives”, Brussels, 8–10 May 2003.Google Scholar
  25. Urbański, M. (2016). Models of abductive reasoning. LiT Verlag (To appear). Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Urbański, M., & Łupkowski, P. (2010). Erotetic search scenarios: Revealing interrogator’s hidden agenda. In P. Łupkowski & M. Purver (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 67–74). Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Kognitywistyczne.Google Scholar
  27. Wiśniewski, A. (1995). The posing of questions: Logical foundations of erotetic inferences. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiśniewski, A. (2004a). Erotetic search scenarios, problem-solving, and deduction. Logique et Analyse, 185–188, 139–166.Google Scholar
  29. Wiśniewski, A. (2004b). A note on abduction and consistency checks by Socratic transformations. Research report. Poznań: Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
  30. Wiśniewski, A. (2004c). Socratic proofs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33(3), 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiśniewski, A. (2013). Questions, inferences, and scenarios. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Wiśniewski, A., & Shangin, V. (2006). Socratic proofs for quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35(2), 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of PsychologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations