Graduate studies at Western
HOPOS 1 (2):227-248 (2011)
|Abstract||Debates concerning the character, scope, and warrant of abductive inference have been active since Peirce first proposed that there was a third form of inference, distinct from induction and deduction. Abductive reasoning has been dubbed weak, incoherent, and even nonexistent. Part, at least, of the problem of articulating a clear sense of abductive inference is due to difficulty in interpreting Peirce. Part of the fault must lie with his critics, however. While this article will argue that Peirce indeed left a number of puzzles for interpreters, it will also contend that interpreters should be careful to distinguish discussion of the formal and strictly epistemic question of whether and how abduction is a sound form of inference from discussions of the practical goals of abduction, as Peirce understood them. This article will trace a history of critics and defenders of Peirce’s notion of abduction and discuss how Peirce both fueled the confusion and in fact anticipated and responded to several recurring objections.|
|Keywords||Peirce abduction history of philosophy of science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
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 Hoffmann (1999). Problems with Peirce's Concept of Abduction. Foundations of Science 4 (3):271-305.
Woosuk Park (2012). Abduction and Estimation in Animals. Foundations of Science 17 (4):321-337.
Daniel G. Campos (2011). On the Distinction Between Peirce's Abduction and Lipton's Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 180 (3):419 - 442.
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.
James Blachowicz (1996). Ampliative Abduction. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):141 – 157.
Sami Paavola (2004). Abduction as a Logic and Methodology of Discovery: The Importance of Strategies. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 9 (3):267-283.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1999). Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):451.
Robert G. Burton (1999). A Neurocomputational Approach to Abduction. Minds and Machines 9 (2):257-265.
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.
Tomis Kapitan (1992). Peirce and the Autonomy of Abductive Reasoning. Erkenntnis 37 (1):1 - 26.
Jaime Nubiola (2005). Abduction or the Logic of Surprise. Semiotica 153 (1/4):117-130.
H. G. Callaway, (2007). Abduction, Pragmatism and the Scientific Imagination. Arisbe, Peirce Related Papers.
Michael H. G. Hoffmann (2004). How to Get It. Diagrammatic Reasoning as a Tool of Knowledge Development and its Pragmatic Dimension. Foundations of Science 9 (3):285-305.
Added to index2011-08-13
Total downloads34 ( #40,671 of 740,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,338 of 740,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?