Theoria 22 (3):285-293 (2007)
|Abstract||Abduction can be intended as a special kind of deductive consequence. In fact a general trend is to consider it as a backward deduction with some additional conditions. However, there can be more than one kind of deduction, so that any definition of abduction must take that into account. From a logical perspec-tive the problem is precisely the formalization of conditions when the deductive consequence is fixed. In this paper, we adopt Makinson’s method to define new consequence relations, hence abduction is defined as a reverse relation corresponding to each one of such relations|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jaime Nubiola (2005). Abduction or the Logic of Surprise. Semiotica 153 (1/4):117-130.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1999). Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):451.
Woosuk Park (2012). Abduction and Estimation in Animals. Foundations of Science 17 (4):321-337.
M. Abraham, Dov M. Gabbay & U. Schild (2009). Analysis of the Talmudic Argumentum a Fortiori Inference Rule (Kal Vachomer) Using Matrix Abduction. Studia Logica 92 (3):281 - 364.
Gerhard Minnameier (2004). Peirce-Suit of Truth – Why Inference to the Best Explanation and Abduction Ought Not to Be Confused. Erkenntnis 60 (1):75-105.
Michael H. G. Hoffmann (2010). "Theoric Transformations" and a New Classification of Abductive Inferences. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (4):570-590.
Robert G. Burton (1999). A Neurocomputational Approach to Abduction. Minds and Machines 9 (2):257-265.
Daniel G. Campos (forthcoming). On the Distinction Between Peirce's Abduction and Lipton's Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese.
Fernando Soler-Toscano (2007). Metamodeling Abduction. Theoria 22 (3):285-293.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #275,053 of 549,754 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )
How can I increase my downloads?