Cognitive Abduction and the Study of Visual Culture

  • María G. Navarro
  • Noemi de Haro García
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 2)


In this paper art history and visual studies, the disciplines that study visual culture, are presented as a field whose conjectural paradigm can be used to understand the epistemic problems associated with abduction. In order to do so, significant statements, concepts and arguments from the work of several specialists in this field have been highlighted. Their analysis shows the fruitfulness and potential for understanding the study of visual culture as a field that is interwoven with the assumptions of abductive cognition.


Belief Revision Cultural Object Visual Study Abductive Reasoning Inferential Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aliseda, A.: Abductive Reasoning. Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, D.R.: Creativity and the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, D.R.: The evolution of peirce’s concept of abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22(2), 145–164 (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argan, G.C.: Ideology and iconology. Critical Inquiry 2(2), 297–305 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Battaglia, F., Lisanby, S.H., Freedberg, D.: Corticomotor excitability during observation and imagination of a work of art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5, 1–6 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belting, H.: Bild-Anthropologie: Entwürfe für eine Bildwissenschaft. Fink, Munich (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandom, R.: Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Didi-Huberman, G.: Atlas. \(\textquestiondown\) Cómo Llevar el Mundo a Cuestas? Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dikovitskaya, M.: Visual Culture. The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedberg, D.: Movement, embodiment, emotion. In: Dufrenne, T., Taylor, A.C. (eds.) Cannibalismes disciplinaires. Quand l’histoire de l’art et l’anthropologie se rencontrent, pp. 37–61. INHA/Musée du Quai Branly, Paris (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freedberg, D., Gallese, V.: Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 11(5), 197–203 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedländer, M.J., Borenius, T.: On Art and Connoisseurship. B. Cassirer, London (1942)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: The Research of Abduction. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallese, V.: Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4, 23–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ginzburg, C.: Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    González-Navarro, M.: Interpretar y Argumentar. CSIC/Plaza y Valdés, Madrid and México (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    González-Navarro, M.: Intelligent environments and the challenge of inferential processes. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 72(2), 309–326 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González-Navarro, M.: Hermenéutica. In: Vega-Reñón, L., Olmos, P. (eds.) Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica, pp. 271–276. Trotta, Madrid (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gorleé, D.: A eureka procedure: Pragmatic discovery in translation. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 8(2/3), 241–269 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gorleé, D.: On Translating Signs: Exploring Text and Semio-Translation. Rodopi, Amsterdam and New York (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hasenmueller, C.: Panofsky, iconography and semiotics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36(3), 289–301 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holly, M.: Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ketner, K.: Peirce and Contemporary Thought: Philosophical Inquiries. Fordham University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolhas, J., Berzati, D., Haenni, R.: Probabilistic argumentation systems and abduction. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 177–195 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lipps, T.: Die ästhetische Betrachtung und die bildende Kunst. Voss, Hamburg and Leipzig (1906)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lipton, P.: Inference to the best Explanation. Routledge, London (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Magnani, L.: Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Foundation of Science 9(3), 219–247 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Magnani, L. (ed.): Abductive Cognition. The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Magnani, L., Ping, L. (eds.): Philosophical Investigations from a Perspective of Cognition. Guangdong People Publishing House, Guangzhou (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moxey, K.: Visual studies and the iconic turn. Journal of Visual Culture 7(2), 131–146 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panofsky, E. (ed.): Meaning in the Visual Arts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peirce, C.: Collected Papers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reilly, F.E. (ed.): Charles Peirce’s Theory of Scientific Method. Fordham University Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riegl, A.: Late Roman Art Industry. Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, Rome (1985)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riegl, A.: Problems of Style. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Riegl, A.: The Group Portraiture of Holland. Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rivadulla, A. (ed.): Éxito, Razón y Cambio en Física. Un Enfoque Instrumental en Teoría de la Ciencia. Trotta, Madrid (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shelley, C.: Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science 53, 278–301 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sprevak, M.: Inference to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41, 353–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thagard, P.: The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy 75, 76–92 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tursman, R. (ed.): Peirce’s Theory of Scientific Discovery. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1987)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vega, J.: Del pasado al futuro de la historia del arte en la universidad española. Ars Longa 16, 205–219 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vega-Reñón, L.: Inferencia, argumentación y lógica. Contextos III(6), 47–72 (1985)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vischer, R.: Über das optische Formgefühl: ein Beitrag zur Aesthetik. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tübingen (1872)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Walliser, B.: Abductive logics in a belief revision framework. Language and Information 14, 87–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walton, D. (ed.): Character Evidence. An Abductive Theory. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Warburg, A.: Dürer and italian antiquity. In: The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity, pp. 553–731. Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wölfflin, H.: Principles of Art History. Dover Publications, New York (1950)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wölfflin, H.: Renaissance and Baroque. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1966)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wölfflin, H.: Prolegomena to a Psychology of Architecture. MIT, Cambridge (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Departamento de Historia y Teoría del ArteUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations