Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of Abduction and the Aristotelian Enthymeme From Signs

  • Manfred Kraus
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 8)

Abstract

There is hardly any feature in Charles S. Peirce’s thinking that is more closely associated with his name, and certainly none that he was more proud of himself, than his alleged discovery of a new type or mode of logical reasoning commonly referred to as abduction. In a retrospective note written in 1902 Peirce in this respect even declared himself “an explorer upon untrodden ground.” (CP 2.102)2 Whether or not this boasting judgment was indeed justified, we shall have to see.

Keywords

Deductive Reasoning Abductive Inference Semiotic Theory Minor Premise Valid Syllogism 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

a) Relevant Editions of Peirce’s Works

  1. CP = Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol. I-VI, ed. Ch. Hartshorne, P. Weiss. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard UP 1931-1934. Vol. VII-VIII, ed. A.W. Burks, Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard UP 1958Google Scholar
  2. NEM = The New Elements of Mathematics, by C.S. Peirce, ed. C. Eisele. Vol. I-IV. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech Press 1976Google Scholar
  3. W = Writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. A Chronological Edition, ed. M.H. Fisch & C.J.W. Kloesel. Vol. I-VI. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana UP 1982-2000Google Scholar
  4. CCL = Reasoning and the Logic of Things. The Cambridge Conference Lectures of 1898, ed. K.L. Keiner. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard UP 1992Google Scholar
  5. PW = Semiotics and Significs. The Correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby ed. CS. Hardwick. Bloomington/London: Indiana UP 1977Google Scholar
  6. PLZ = Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen, hg. und übs. von H. Pape. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp 1983Google Scholar

b) Other references

  1. Anderson, D.R. (1986). The evolution of Peirce’s concept of abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 22, no. 2, 145–164.Google Scholar
  2. Ayim, M. (1986). Abduction. In: T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, volume I (pp. 1–2). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam 1986.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J.M. (1901). Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 1. Gloucester, Mass.: Smith.Google Scholar
  4. Bitzer, L.F. (1959). Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, W.M. (1983). The economy of Peirce’s abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 19, no. 4, 397–411.Google Scholar
  6. Burks, A.W. (1946). Peirce’s theory of abduction. Philosophy of Science, 13, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bumyeat, M.F.: Enthymeme. Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In: D.J. Furley & A. Nehamas (Eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays, (pp. 3–55). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, M.D. (1991). Abduction and rhetorical theory. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24, no. 4, 281–300.Google Scholar
  9. Conley, T.M. (1984). The enthymeme in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deledalle, G. (1984). Abduction and semiotics. in: M. Herzfeld & L. Melazzo (Eds.), Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the IASS Palermo, 1984 (pp. 1260–1263). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Fann, K.T. (1970). Peirce’s Theory of Abduction. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankfurt, H.G. (1958). Peirce’s notion of abduction. The Journal of Philosophy, 55, no. 14, 593–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, L.D. (1995). Aristotle’s enthymeme and the imperfect syllogism, in: W.B. Horner & M. Leff (Eds.), Rhetoric and Pedagogy. Its History, Philosophy, and Practice. Essays in Honor of J.J. Murphy (pp. 19–41). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  14. Grimaldi, W.M.A. (1972). Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
  15. Harper, N. (1973). An analytical description of Aristotle’s enthymeme. Central States Speech Journal, 24, 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heede, R. (1971). Abduktion. In J. Ritter (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 1 (pp. 3–4). Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe.Google Scholar
  17. Herrero Blanco, A. (1988). Semioticay creatividad. La logica abductiva. Madrid: Palas Atenea.Google Scholar
  18. Hood, M.D. (1984). Aristotle’s Enthymeme. Its Theory and Application to Discourse (Diss. Univ. of Oregon). Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  19. Kapitan, T.(1990). In what way is abductive inference creative? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 26, no. 4, 499–512.Google Scholar
  20. Kempski, J. v. (1951). C.S. Peirce und die apagŌgé des Aristoteles. In A. Menne, A. Wilhelmy & H. Angstl (Eds.), Kontrolliertes Denken. Untersuchungen zum Logikkalkül und zur Logik der Einzelwissenschaften. Festschrift W. Britzelmayr (pp. 56–64). Freiburg/München: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
  21. Kempski, J. v. (1952). Charles Sanders Peirce und der Pragmatismus. Stuttgart/Köln: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  22. Kempski, J. v. (1988). CS. Peirce zu Aristoteles’ Analytica priora II 23, 25. In: R. Claussen & R. Daube-Schackat (Eds.), Gedankenzeichen. Festschrift für K. Oehler zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 263–265). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  23. Kraus, M. (1994). Enthymem. In: G. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 2: Bie-Eul (pp. 1197–1222). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  24. Kruse, F.E. (1986). Indexicality and the abductive link, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 22, no. 4, 435–447.Google Scholar
  25. Lanigan, R.L. (1974). Enthymeme: The rhetorical species of Aristotle’s syllogism. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 39, no. 3, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lanigan, R.L. (1995). From enthymeme to abduction: The classical law of logic and the postmodern rule of rhetoric. In: L. Langsdorf & A.R. Smith (Eds.), Recovering Pragmatism’s Voice. The Classical Tradition, Rorty, and the Philosophy of Communication (pp. 49–70; 278-283). Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Madden, E.H. (1957). Aristotle’s treatment of probability and signs. Philosophy of Science, 24, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marostica, A.H. (1993). Abduction: The creative process. In: R.J. Jorna, B. van Heusden & R. Posner (Eds.), Signs, Search and Communication. Semiotic Aspects of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 134–150). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. McBurney, J.H. (1936). The place of the enthymeme in rhetorical theory. Speech Monographs, 3, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, Ralf (1999). Die dynamische Logik des Erkennens von Charles S. Peirce. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
  31. Patzig, G. (1959). Die aristotelische Syllogistik. Logisch-philologische Untersuchungen über das Buch A der Ersten Analytiken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.Google Scholar
  32. Proni, G. (1988). Aristotle’s abduction. In: M. Herzfeld & L. Melazzo (Eds.), Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the IASS Palermo, 1984 (pp. 953–961). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Rapp, C (2002). Aristoteles, Rhetorik, übersetzt und erläutert, vol. 2, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  34. Richter, A. (1995). Der Begriff der Abduktion bei Charles Sanders Peirce, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, R.J. (1988). Anderson on Peirce’s Concept of Abduction: Further Reflections. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 24, no. 1, 131–139.Google Scholar
  36. Sabre, R.M. (1990). Peirce’s abductive argument and the enthymeme. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 26, no. 3, 363–372.Google Scholar
  37. Schumacher, R. (1996). Realität, synthetisches Schließen und Pragmatismus. Inhalt, Begründung und Funktion des Realitätsbegriffs in den Theorien von Charles S. Peirce in der Zeit von 1865 bis 1878. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum.Google Scholar
  38. Seaton, R.C (1914). The Aristotelian enthymeme. The Classical Review, 28, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shanahan, T. (1986). The first moment of scientific inquiry: C.S. Peirce on the logic of abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 22, no. 4, 449–466.Google Scholar
  40. Sprute, J. (1982). Die Enthymemtheorie der aristotelischen Rhetorik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  41. Thagard, P.R. (1977). The unity of Peirce’s theory of hypothesis. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 13, no. 2, 112–121.Google Scholar
  42. Thagard, P.R. (1978). Semiotics and hypothetic inference in CS. Peirce. Versus (VS), 19/20, 163–172.Google Scholar
  43. Thagard, P.R. (1981). Peirce on hypothesis and abduction. In: K.L. Ketner et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress (pp. 271–274), Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tursman, R. (1987). Peirce’s Theory of Scientific Discovery. A System of Logic Conceived as Semiotic. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana UP.Google Scholar
  45. Weidemann, H. (1988). Aristoteles über Schlüsse aus Zeichen (Rhet. 12, 1357 b 1–25). In: R. Claussen & R. Daube-Schackat (Eds.), Gedankenzeichen. Festschrift für K. Oehler zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 27-34). Tübingen: StauffenburgGoogle Scholar
  46. Whately, R. (1826/1987). Elements of Logic. London: J. Mawman; repr. ed. by Paola Dessì. Bologna: Ed. CLUEB.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Kraus

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations