Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:45:05.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defending Abduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ilkka Niiniluoto
Ilkka Niiniluoto*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
*
†Department of Philosophy, P.O. Box 24, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland; e-mail: ilkka.niiniluoto@helsinki.fi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Charles S. Peirce argued that, besides deduction and induction, there is a third mode of inference which he called “hypothesis” or “abduction.” He characterized abduction as reasoning “from effect to cause,” and as “the operation of adopting an explanatory hypothesis.” Peirce's ideas about abduction, which are related also to historically earlier accounts of heuristic reasoning (the method of analysis), have been seen as providing a logic of scientific discovery. Alternatively, abduction is interpreted as giving reasons for pursuing a hypothesis. Inference to the best explanation (IBE) has also been regarded as an important mode of justification, both in everyday life, detective stories, and science. In particular, scientific realism has been defended by an abductive nomiracle argument (Smart, Putnam, Boyd), while the critics of realism have attempted to show that this appeal to abduction is question-begging, circular, or incoherent (Fine, Laudan, van Fraassen). This paper approaches these issues by distinguishing weaker and stronger forms of abduction, and by showing how these types of inferences can be given Peircean and Bayesian probabilistic reconstructions.

Type
Explanation, Confirmation, and Scientific Inference
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S436 - S451
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aliseda-Llera, Atocha (1997), Seeking Explanations: Abduction in Logic, Philosophy of Science and Artificial Intelligence. ILLC Dissertation Series, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Barnes, Eric (1995), “Inference to the Loveliest Explanation”, Synthese 103: 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1984), “The Current Status of Scientific Realism”, in Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 41–82.10.1525/9780520337442-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Timothy and Kincaid, Harold (1994), “Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in its Place”, Synthese 98: 271–295.10.1007/BF01063944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto and Sebeok, Thomas A. (eds.) (1983), The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, The Journal of Philosophy 71: 1–19.10.2307/2024924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, R. A. (1980), “Induction and Reasoning to the Best Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 47: 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1961), “Is There a Logic of Discovery?”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 20–35.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert (1965), “Inference to the Best Explanation”, The Philosophical Review 74: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko (1968), “The Varieties of Information and Scientific Explanation”, in Rootselaar, B. van and Staal, J.F. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science III. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 151–171.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. (1997), “The Place of C.S. Peirce in the History of Logical Theory”, in Lingua Universalis vs. Calculus Ratiocinator. Selected Papers 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 140–161.10.1007/978-94-015-8601-6_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. (1998), “What is Abduction? The Fundamental Problem of Contemporary Epistemology”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34: 503–533.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko and Remes, Unto (1974), The Method of Analysis: Its Geometrical Origin and Its General Significance. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapitan, Tomis (1997), “Peirce and the Structure of Abductive Inference”, in Houser, N., Roberts, D. D., and Evra, J. Van (eds.), Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 477–496.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (1994), “A Critique of van Fraassen's Voluntaristic Epistemology”, Synthese 98: 325–348.10.1007/BF01063946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, André (1996), “Antirealistic Explanations of the Success of Science”, Philosophy of Science 63 (Proceedings):S298–S305.10.1086/289964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. (1984), Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett (1987), “Surrealism”, Mind 96: 519–524.10.1093/mind/XCVI.384.519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac (1979), “Abduction and Demands of Information”, in Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 405–429.Google Scholar
Levi, Isaac. (1995), “Induction According to Peirce”, in Ketner, K. L. (ed.), Peirce and Contemporary Thought. New York: Fordham University Press, 59–93.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, David E. (1996), “Confirmation, Explanation, and Logical Strength”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (ed.) (1980), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-8986-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (ed.). (1981), “What is a Problem that We May Solve It?”, Synthese 47: 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1984), Is Science Progressive? Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. (1988), “Analogy and Similarity in Scientific Reasoning”, in Helman, D. (ed.), Analogical Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 271–298.10.1007/978-94-015-7811-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. (1990), “Measuring the Success of Science”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 435–445.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. (1993), “Peirce's Theory of Statistical Explanation”, in Moore, E. C. (ed.), Charles S. Peirce and the Philosophy of Science. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 186–207.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. (1994), “Descriptive and Inductive Simplicity”, in Salmon, W. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Logic, Language, and the Structure of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 147–170.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka and Tuomela, Raimo (1973), Theoretical Concepts and Hypothetico-Inductive Inference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1931–1935, 1958), Collected Papers, (volumes 1–6, ed. by Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.; 7–8, ed. by A. Burks.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1982–), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, 1– (ed. by Fisch, M. et al.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1992), Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898 (ed. by Ketner, K. L.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis (1996), “On van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Reasoning”, The Philosophical Quarterly 46: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1990), “Rationality and Objectivity in Science or Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes”, in Savage, C. W. (ed.), Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 175–204.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1977), Models of Discovery. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (1989), Our Place in the Universe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smokier, Howard (1968), “Conflicting Conceptions of Confirmation”, The Journal of Philosophy 65: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Laura J. (1997), “Discoverers' Induction”, Philosophy of Science 64: 580–604.10.1086/392573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul (1978), “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice”, The Journal of Philosophy 75: 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul and Shelley, C. (1997), “Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence”, in Dalla Chiara, M. L. et al. (eds.), Logic and Scientific Methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 413–427.10.1007/978-94-017-0487-8_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, Raimo (1985), “Truth and Best Explanation”, Erkenntnis 22: 271–299.10.1007/BF00269971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, William (1847), The Philosophy of Inductive Sciences, Founded upon Their History, 2nd ed. London: John Parker and Sons.Google Scholar