Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of abduction

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes abductions as special patterns of inference to the best explanation whose structure determines a particularly promising abductive conjecture (conclusion) and thus serves as an abductive search strategy (Sect. 1). A classification of different patterns of abduction is provided which intends to be as complete as possible (Sect. 2). An important distinction is that between selective abductions, which choose an optimal candidate from given multitude of possible explanations (Sects. 3–4), and creative abductions, which introduce new theoretical models or concepts (Sects. 5–7). While selective abduction has dominated the literature, creative abductions are rarely discussed, although they are essential in science. The article introduces several kinds of creative abductions, such as theoretical model abduction, common cause abduction and statistical factor analysis, and illustrates them by various real case examples. It is suggested to demarcate scientifically fruitful abductions from purely speculative abductions by the criterion of causal unification (Sect. 7.1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aliseda A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Dordrecht, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong D.M. (1983). What is a law of nature?. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong D.M. (1969). Dispositions as causes. Analysis 30, 23–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes E. (1995). Inference to the loveliest explanation. Synthese 103, 251–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J. (1985). Lehrbuch der Statistik. Berlin: Springer [6th ed. 2005].

  • Bratko I. (1986). Prolog programming for artificial intelligence. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publ. Comp

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan B., et al. (1969). Heuristic dendral. Machine Intelligence 4, 209–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In: Feigl H., Scriven M. (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. I. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, pp. 38–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. M. (1966). Theory of knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [3rd ed. 1988].

  • Console L., et al. (1991). On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 1, 661–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Regt H.W. (2006). Wesley Salmon’s complementarity thesis: Causality and Unificationism Reconciled?. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20, 129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Day T., Kincaid H. (1994). Putting inference to the best explanation in its place. Synthese 98, 271–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducasse J. (1974). A critical examination of the belief in a life after death. Springfield, Charles and Thomas

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Dordrecht, Reidel

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman J. (1992). Bayes or bust?. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach P., Kakas A. (eds) (2000). Abduction and induction. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumerton R.A. (1980). Induction and reasoning to the best explanation. Philosophy of Science 47, 589–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay D., Woods J. (2005). The reach of abduction: Insight and trial. A practical logic of cognitive systems, Vol 2. Amsterdam, North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemes K. (1993). Hypothetico-deductivism, content, and the natural axiomatization of theories. Philosophy of Science 54, 477–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glymour C. (1981). Theory and evidence. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Glymour C., Spirtes P., Scheines R. (1991). Causal inference. Erkenntnis 35, 151–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1991). Logic and conversation. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305–315). New York: Oxford Univ. Press [2nd print].

  • Haig B. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research 40, 303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halonen I., Hintikka J. (2005). Towards a theory of the process of explanation. Synthese 143, 5–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson N.R. (1961). Is there a logic of discovery?. In: Feigl H., Maxwell G. (eds) Current issues in the philosophy of science. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 20–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman G.H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review 74, 173–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1998). What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society 34, 503–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J., Halonen I., Mutanen A. (1999). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In: Hintikka J. (eds) Inquiry as inquiry. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 47–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs J.R., et al. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence Journal 63, 69–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyak K., Thagard P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 13, 295–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howson C. (2000). Hume’s problem: Induction and the justification of belief. Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson C., Urbach P. (1996). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (2nd ed). Chicago, Open Court

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson J., Josephson S. (eds) (1994). Abductive inference. New York, Cambridge Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science 48, 507–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Chicago Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers T.A.F. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers T.A.F. (2004). Inference to the best theory, rather than inference to the best explanation. In: Stadler F. (eds) Induction and deduction in the sciences. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 25–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 91–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley P., et al. (1987). Scientific discovery. Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton P. (1991). Inference to the best explanation. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnani L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill J.St. (1865). System of logic (6th ed). London, Parker, Son, and Bourn

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar G. (1999). Are dispositions reducible?. Philosophical Quarterly 49, 1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser P.K. (1989). Knowledge and evidence. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford S. (1998). Dispositions. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto I. (1999). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 66, S436–S451

    Google Scholar 

  • Octoby D.W., et al. (1999). Modern chemistry. Orlando, Saunders College Publ

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte R. (1981). A critique of Suppes’ theory of probabilistic causality. Synthese 48, 167–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pap A. (1978). Disposition concepts and extensional logic. In: Tuomela R. (eds) Dispositions. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 27–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul G. (1993). Approaches to abductive reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 7, 109–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In Peirce (CP) 2.619–2.644.

  • Peirce, C. S. (1903). Lectures on pragmatism. In Peirce (CP) 5.14–5.212.

  • Peirce, C. S. (CP). In C. Hartshorne P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers (pp. 1931–1935). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

  • Pollock J. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Maryland, Rowman & Littlefied

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior E.W., Pargetter R., Jackson F. (1982). Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly 19, 251–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.v.O. (1974). Roots of reference. Open Court, La Salle

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1956). The direction of time. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley M. (1993). Evolution. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock I. (1984). Perception. New York, Scientific American Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell S.J., Norvig P. (eds) (1995). Artificial intelligence. Englewood-Cliffs, Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurz G. (1991). Relevant deduction. Erkenntnis 35, 391–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurz G. (1996). The role of negation in non-monotonic logic. In: Wansing H. (eds) Negation. Berlin, W. de Gruyter, pp. 197–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurz G. (2001). What is ‘normal’? An evolution-theoretic foundation of normic laws. Philosophy of Science 28, 476–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurz G., Lambert K. (1994). Outline of a theory of scientific understanding. Synthese 101/1: 65–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A., & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1980). `You know my method’. A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. Bloomington, IN: Gaslight Publ.

  • Shelley C. (1996). Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science 63, 278–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. Boulder, Westview Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., et al. (eds) (1995). Causal cognition. Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (1979). The existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press [revised 2nd ed. 2004].

  • Thagard P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P. (1992). Conceptual revolution. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press [reprint 1990].

  • Walton D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, Univ. of Alabama Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Duesseldorf, Gebaeude 23.21, Universitaetsstrasse 1, Duesseldorf, 40225, Germany

    G. Schurz

Authors
  1. G. Schurz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Schurz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schurz, G. Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164, 201–234 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation