Philosophy: Induction, Deduction, Abduction
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.Induction versus Deduction
Image: Induction and deduction, page 93.
Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does not necessarily follow with a logical conclusion. (93).
This text writes that 'inductive reasoning is not indubitably valid...' (93).
Many philosophers today believe that 'inductive reasoning is simply a different way of providing reasons for beliefs.' (93).
My example of inductive reasoning: I bought a book that so far only contains modern Canadian stamps through page 45 of 50. I assume the book only contains modern Canadian stamps.
(Perhaps, but unlikely, the last page has modern American stamps, for example)
This opposed to deductive reasoning. (93). Premise (s) + premise (s) = conclusion.
Abduction
In 'How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument', Kenneth Samples explains three approaches in logic:
Deduction, which establishes with certainty true conclusions
Induction, which establishes probably true conclusions
Abduction, which uses a set of established facts to infer the best explanation.
Samples admits the abduction method is less well-known. Reasons (2014: 2). Indeed, abduction is not mentioned via the index in 'Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers' text under review which is from two years later in 2016. My other new philosophy textbook under review: 'The Little Book of Philosophy' see previous website entry, only mentions deduction via the index, stating: 'Pythagoras also established the principle of deductive reasoning'...(21). This was used to build toward a conclusion, so the text uses 2 + 2 = 4. (21). Therefore premise + premise = conclusion, my add.
Blackburn defines abduction as a term introduced by Peirce 'for the process of using evidence to reach wider conclusion, as inference to the best explanation'. (1). Peirce thought that these findings were to be examined for a rational explanation. (1).
Also citing Blackburn:
He explains that deduction is 'A process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn a set of premises.' (96).
Peirce, C. S. [CP]. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, 1931–1958, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce cited:
As he says, “[a]bduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea” (CP 5.172); elsewhere he says that abduction encompasses “all the operations by which theories and conceptions are engendered” (CP 5.590).
Abduction relies on inference.
I infer from the accused murderer's sinister smile, during a description of the crime in court, that he/she is guilty of murder.
2. Thagard, Paul and Cameron Shelley. "Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence." Waterloo, Ontario: Philosophy Department, Univerisity of Waterloo, 1997. June 2, 2005. < http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html>'
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.
Cited
In the philosophical literature, the term “abduction” is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses.
In the latter sense, abduction is also often called “Inference to the Best Explanation.”
This entry is exclusively concerned with abduction in the modern sense, although there is a supplement on abduction in the historical sense, which had its origin in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce
Blackburn's definition on induction sheds some more light...
Induction, Deduction, Abduction
Blackburn cited:
Induction
'The term is most widely used for any process of reasoning that takes us from empirical premises to empirical conclusions supported by the premises.' (192). Induction is commonly 'distinguished from arguments to theoretical explanations.' (192).
From the 'Elements' text, it appears that abductive argumentation is not reviewed.
Inductive arguments are mentioned in the context of 'inductive generalization' where the inference is from some sample of a population to all or some percentage of its members. Elements (1997: 43).
The authors state that there is no 'simple answer' to support evidence for an inductive generalization but statistics are used to avoid 'gross errors'. Elements (1997: 43).
The authors then contrast induction from deduction. The two types of arguments are contrasted. Nondeductive are contrasted from deductive arguments and the terms inductive and induction are used for 'reasoning that generalizes from particular instances'. Elements (1997: 43).
Cited
Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed
Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive: If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9
Cited
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and syntax.'
Cited
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
Cited
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they know.
Cited
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both.
Cited
References
'1. Verfaillie, Catherine. "Adult Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Blood Vessels." News release from the University of Minnesota. Jan. 30, 2002. June 1, 2005.
Brief Comments
Academically, in my writing, I rely more on deductive reasoning and arguments than inductive or abductive reasoning and arguments, but certainly make use of all three in academia and life. With deduction I am seeking to present, a logically consistent, reasonable premise (s) and conclusion. Or a logical, reasonable, statement/proposition, if not an argument. Induction relies on probability and abduction relies on inference.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
DIELS, H. and W. KRANZ, 1952, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (in three volumes), 6th edition, Dublin and Zürich: Weidmann, Volume 1, Chapter 14, 96–105 (Greek texts of the early testimonia with translations in German. Referred to as DK.).
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
PEIRCE C. S. [CP]. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, 1931–1958, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
No comments:
Post a Comment