David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 37 (1):1 - 26 (1992)
Essential to Peirce's distinction among three kinds of reasoning, deduction, induction and abduction, is the claim that each is correlated to a unique species of validity irreducible to that of the others. In particular, abductive validity cannot be analyzed in either deductive or inductive terms, a consequence of considerable importance for the logical and epistemological scrutiny of scientific methods. But when the full structure of abductive argumentation — as viewed by the mature Peirce — is clarified, every inferential step in the process can be seen to dissolve into familiar forms of deductive and inductive reasoning. Specifically, the final stage is a special type of practical inference which, if correct, is deductively valid, while the creative phase, surprisingly, is not inferential at all. In neither is abduction a type of inference to the best explanation. The result is a major reassessment of the relevance of Peirce's views to contemporary methodological studies.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen & Francesco Bellucci (2015). New Light on Peirce's Conceptions of Retroduction, Deduction, and Scientific Reasoning. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28 (4):353-373.
Sami Paavola (2006). Hansonian and Harmanian Abduction as Models of Discovery. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):93 – 108.
Maj-Britt Råholm (2010). Abductive Reasoning and the Formation of Scientific Knowledge Within Nursing Research. Nursing Philosophy 11 (4):260-270.
Nirmalya Guha (forthcoming). On Arthāpatti. Journal of Indian Philosophy:1-20.
Paul Redding (2003). Hegel and Peircean Abduction. European Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):295–313.
Similar books and articles
P. Thagard & C. P. Shelley (1997). Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence. In [Book Chapter].
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1999). Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):451.
Daniel J. McKaughan (2008). From Ugly Duckling to Swan: C. S. Peirce, Abduction, and the Pursuit of Scientific Theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 44 (3):pp. 446-468.
Alan R. Rhoda (2011). Peirce and Lonergan on Inquiry and the Pragmatics of Inference. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (2):181-194.
John R. Josephson & Susan G. Josephson (eds.) (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge University Press.
Dov Gabbay & John Woods (2006). Advice on Abductive Logic. Logic Journal of the Igpl 14 (2):189-219.
Sami Paavola (2004). Abduction as a Logic and Methodology of Discovery: The Importance of Strategies. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 9 (3):267-283.
Atocha Aliseda (2007). Abductive Reasoning: Challenges Ahead. Theoria 22 (3):261-270.
Sami Paavola (2011). Abductive Cognition: The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning (Review). Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 47 (2):252-256.
Michael Hoffmann (1999). Problems with Peirce's Concept of Abduction. Foundations of Science 4 (3):271-305.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #123,584 of 1,796,251 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #349,760 of 1,796,251 )
How can I increase my downloads?