Logic Journal of the IGPL 20 (2):497-516 (2012)

Abstract
Most logic–based approaches characterize abduction as a kind of backwards deduction plus additional conditions, which means that a number of conditions is specified that enable one to decide whether or not a particular abductive inference is sound . Despite the fact that these approaches succeed in specifying which formulas count as valid consequences of abductive inference steps, they do not explicate the way people actually reason by means of abductive inferences. This is most clearly shown by the absence of a decent proof theory. Instead, search procedures are provided that enable one to determine the right abductive consequences. However, these do not by far resemble human reasoning. In order to explicate abductive reasoning more realistically, an alternative approach will be provided in this article, namely, one that is based on the adaptive logics programme. Proof theoretically, this approach interprets the argumentation schema affirming the consequent as a defeasible rule of inference. This comes down to the fact that the abductive consequences obtained by means of AC are accepted only for as long as certain conditions are satis.ed—e.g. as long as their negation has not been derived from the background theory. In the end, only the unproblematic applications of AC are retained, while the problematic ones are rejected. In this way, the adaptive logics approach to abduction succeeds to provide a more realistic explication of the way people reason by means of abductive inferences. Moreover, as multiple abduction processes will be characterized, this article may be considered as the first step in the direction of a general formal approach to abduction based on the adaptive logics programme
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jigpal/jzq053
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,508
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Did He Jump or Was He Pushed?: Abductive Practical Reasoning.Katie Atkinson - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
Abduction is Not Deduction-in-Reverse.Marta Cialdea Mayer & Fiora Pirri - 1996 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 4 (1):95-108.
Four Problems of Abduction: A Brief History.Anya Plutynski - 2011 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (2):227-248.
Propositional Abduction in Modal Logic.Marta Cialdea Mayer & Fiora Pirri - 1995 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 3 (6):907-919.
Advice on Abductive Logic.Dov Gabbay & John Woods - 2006 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 14 (2):189-219.
Visual Abductive Reasoning in Archaeology.Cameron Shelley - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (2):278-301.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-04

Total views
2 ( #1,332,735 of 2,330,885 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #587,623 of 2,330,885 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes