Advanced

Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument

Yu, Shiyang and Zenker, Frank LU (2017) In Argumentation
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... (More)

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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
Abduction, Abductive argument, Critical questions, Inference to the best explanation, Peirce, Scheme
in
Argumentation
pages
19 pages
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • scopus:85035309056
ISSN
0920-427X
DOI
10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3a7917d6-3d28-40f3-aecb-b4fb8c9ac170
date added to LUP
2017-12-12 12:29:49
date last changed
2018-11-21 21:36:34
@article{3a7917d6-3d28-40f3-aecb-b4fb8c9ac170,
  abstract     = {<p>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.</p>},
  author       = {Yu, Shiyang and Zenker, Frank},
  issn         = {0920-427X},
  keyword      = {Abduction,Abductive argument,Critical questions,Inference to the best explanation,Peirce,Scheme},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {11},
  pages        = {19},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {Argumentation},
  title        = {Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9},
  year         = {2017},
}