Abstract

Whether abduction is treated as an argument or as an inference, the mainstream view presupposes a tight connection between abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE). This paper critically evaluates this link and supports a narrower view on abduction. Our main thesis is that merely the hypothesis-generative aspect, but not the evaluative aspect, is properly abductive in the sense introduced by C. S. Peirce. We show why equating abduction with IBE (or understanding them as inseparable parts) unnecessarily complicates argument evaluation by levelling the status of abduction as a third reasoning mode (besides deduction and induction). We also propose a scheme for abductive argument along with critical questions, and suggest retaining abduction alongside IBE as related but distinct categories.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2018-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 6 →
  1. Argumentation
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. Abductive Reasoning. Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation (Syntheses Library)
  2. Bex, F., and B. Verheij. 2013. Legal stories and the process of proof. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 253–278.
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  
  3. Burks, A.W. 1946. Peirce’s theory of abduction. Philosophy of Science 13: 301–306.
    Philosophy of Science  
  4. Campos, D.G. 2011. On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanati…
    Synthese  
  5. Frankfurt, H.G. 1958. Peirce’s notion of abduction. The Journal of Philosophy 55: 593–597.
    The Journal of Philosophy  
  6. Goodnight, T. 1993. Legitimation inference: An additional component for the Toulmin model. Informal Logic 15: 1–15.
    Informal Logic  
  7. Anyone Who has a View. Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation
  8. Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics
  9. Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology
  10. Abduction, Reason and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation
  11. Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66: S436–S451.
    Philosophy of Science  
  12. Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive Science  
  13. Preyer, G., and D. Mans. 1999. On contemporary developments in the theory of argumentation. Protosociology 13…
    Protosociology  
  14. Schurz, G. 2008. Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164: 201–234.
    Synthese  
  15. Shelley, C.P. 1996. Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science 63: 278–301.
    Philosophy of Science  
  16. The Laws of Belief: Ranking Functions and Their Applications
  17. Conceptual revolutions
  18. How scientists explain disease
  19. Coherence in thought and action
  20. Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental and Computational Approaches
  21. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory…
  22. Handbook of Argumentation Theory
  23. Verheij, B. 2003. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificia…
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  
  24. Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation
  25. Argumentation Schemes
  26. Williamson, J. 2003. Review: Abduction, reason, and science—Processes of discovery and explanation. British J…
    British Journal for the Philosophy of Science