Abductive Argument

An Abductive Argument is a logic argument based on how well the conclusion matches the prior background knowledge (relative to other possible conclusions).

• AKA: Abductive Inference.
• Context:
  • It can be the outcome of an Abductive Reasoning Process.
  • …
• Example(s):
  • Premise: All beings are mortal; Premise: Socrates is mortal; Logic Operation: Affirming the Consequent; Conclusion: Socrates is a being.
  • an Analogical Argument.
  • …
• Counter-Example(s):
  • an Inductive Argument, from inductive inference.
  • a Deductive Argument, from deductive inference.
• See: Invalid Deductive Argument, Closed World Assumption.

---

---

References

2012

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  • Abduction is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of something to a hypothesis that accounts for the data. The term was first introduced by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) as "guessing". Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] from an observed surprising circumstance [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] is to surmise that [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] may be true because then [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] would be a matter of course. Thus, to abduce [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] from [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] involves determining that [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math].

    For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that Peirce did not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)

    Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy are what call for the 'leap' of abduction.

2009

• http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm
  • QUOTE: Abduction. The operation of guessing or forming an initial hypothesis is what Peirce called abduction. Given an assertion q and an axiom of the form p implies q, the guess that p is a likely cause or explanation for q is an act of abduction. The operation of guessing p uses the least constrained version of analogy, in which some parts of the matching graphs may be more generalized while other parts are more specialized.

2001

• (Magnani, 2001) ⇒ L. Magnani. (2001). “Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation". Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001. xvii þ 205 pages. Hard cover, ISBN 0-306-46514-0.

2000

• (Bunt & Black, 2000) ⇒ H. Bunt, and W. Black. (2000). “Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics" (Natural Language Processing, 1.) John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 2000. vi þ 471 pages. Hard cover, ISBN 90-272-4983-0 (Europe),

1-58619-794-2 (U.S.)

1994

• (Josephson & Josephson, 1994) ⇒ J.R. Josephson, and H.G. Josephson. (1994). “Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology." Cambridge University Press, ISBN:0-521-43461-0

1988

• (Hobbs et al., 1988) ⇒ Jerry R. Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Paul Martin, and Douglas Edwards. (1988). “Interpretation as Abduction.” In: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 1988).
  • QUOTE: Abductive inference is inference to the best explanation.