kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean) (05/04/91)
After working on so call "abductive reasoning" for a while, I am beginning to wonder about the meaning of the term "abductive reasoning" and its historical reason for such name. From Webster, ab-duct \ab-'dekt, eb-; 2 also 'ab-,\ [L abductus, pp. of abducere, lit., to lead away, fr. ab- + ducere to lead -- more at TOW] (1834) 1: to carry off (as a person) by force 2: to draw away (as a limb) from a position near or parallel to the median axis of the body; also: to move (similar parts) apart -- ab-duc-tor \-'dek-ter\ n and "abductive" is not found in the dictionary. I always thought of "abductive reasoning" as a form of reasoning that explain its conclusion, i.e. provides the proofs as an answer rather that just yes/no answer. I guess the closest word I came about to express my statement from Webster is ad-duce \e-'d(y):us\ vt ad-duced; ad-duc-ing [L adducere, lit., to lead to, fr. ad- + ducere to lead -- more at TOW] (15c) :to offer as example, reason, or proof in discussion or analysis -- ad-duc-er n I realized the word "abduction" was coined by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) but I am unable to understand his choice of using the term. Any thought out there ? Best Regards, Alex Kean <kean@cs.ubc.ca> Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia #333-6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6T 1W5 Tel# (604)-228-4912
cain@ics.uci.edu (Timothy Cain) (05/04/91)
In <1991May3.181328.16368@cs.ubc.ca> kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean) writes: >After working on so call "abductive reasoning" for a while, I am >beginning to wonder about the meaning of the term "abductive >reasoning" and its historical reason for such name. From Webster, [ definition deleted ] First, let me say that my New Webster's dictionary includes the definition "in logic, a syllogism, the minor premise and conclusion of which are only probable" Not exactly what I call abduction, but closer the anatomical definition! >and "abductive" is not found in the dictionary. I always thought of >"abductive reasoning" as a form of reasoning that explain its >conclusion, i.e. provides the proofs as an answer rather that just >yes/no answer. Forming a complete proof (all of the leaves of the proof are known to be true) is a deductive process, not an abductive one. Abduction provides a plausible proof, where one or more of the leaves of the proof are not known to be true (or at least, their certainty is not 100%). If any proof of a known conclusion requires the reasoner to make an assumption, that's a good sign that abductive reasoning is being used. A lot of people say Sherlock Holmes performed deduction, but I disagree. He made MANY assumptions to back up his conclusions, which is an abductive process (or at the very least, it's assumptive deduction, but that's a whole new can of worms!). >I realized the word "abduction" was coined by Charles Sanders Peirce >(1839-1914) but I am unable to understand his choice of using the term. Good question. Maybe the latin root? >Best Regards, >Alex Kean <kean@cs.ubc.ca> -- Timothy D. Cain Department of Information and Computer Science UC Irvine cain@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)
scotp@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Scott P D) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May3.181328.16368@cs.ubc.ca> kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean) writes: >After working on so call "abductive reasoning" for a while, I am >beginning to wonder about the meaning of the term "abductive >reasoning" and its historical reason for such name. > [ Stuff on common meanings of 'abduct' and 'adduce' omitted.] > >I realized the word "abduction" was coined by Charles Sanders Peirce >(1839-1914) but I am unable to understand his choice of using the term. >Any thought out there ? While I don't actually know why Peirce chose this term, I can offer a plausible guess: The term 'deduction' derives from 'ducere' (lead) prefixed by 'de' which, in this case, means 'from'. I guess that Peirce wanted another term to denote a different way in which one proposition may follow from another. So he looked round for another prefix that could mean 'from'. He found 'ab' -- hence 'abduction'. You will note that this explanation is itself derived through abductive reasoning! Paul Scott, Dept Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
valdes+@cs.cmu.edu (Raul Valdes-Perez) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May3.181328.16368@cs.ubc.ca> kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean) writes: >After working on so call "abductive reasoning" for a while, I am >beginning to wonder about the meaning of the term "abductive >reasoning" and its historical reason for such name. I would suggest some selective reading in Charles S. Peirce, "Essays in the Philosophy of Science," American Heritage Series, 1957. I did some reading there, and discovered quite muddled uses of the term abduction by Peirce. In one essay he seems to mean one thing, and in a second he means another. Peirce introduced the term because he wanted to speak of scientific processes other than "induction," understood as merely formulating generalized laws from data. For example, he wished to discuss the proposal of explanatory theories, such as theories that provide a physical mechanism giving rise to observed data, in which data are qualitatively quite distinct from theory. Such an abduction would be the proposal of the mechanism underlying blood circulation in the body, starting from data on blood properties, what happens when an artery is artifically constricted by a tight knot (you get a bulge on one side but not the other), etc. Peirce also used synonyms for `abduction,' such as the `method of hypothesis.' Raul E. Valdes-Perez valdes@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science (412) 268-7698 Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There are many other advantages of the distinction in question which I shall leave the reader to find out by experience." (Peirce) --
cain@ics.uci.edu (Timothy Cain) (05/06/91)
In <1991May5.175755.24614@cs.cmu.edu> valdes+@cs.cmu.edu (Raul Valdes-Perez) writes: >I would suggest some selective reading in Charles S. Peirce, "Essays in the >Philosophy of Science," American Heritage Series, 1957. >I did some reading there, and discovered quite muddled uses of the term >abduction by Peirce. In one essay he seems to mean one thing, and in a >second he means another. This confusion arises because Peirce literally changed his mind on the meaning of abduction after the first ten years or so. A great book that summarizes Peirce's ideas is Author: Fann, K. T., 1937- Title: Peirce's theory of abduction, by K. T. Fann. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1970. This is also Fann's thesis from Illinois. I found this book to be very useful in clearing up the confusion over the meaning of abduction. Fann gives examples of its use and discusses how scientific discovery could be modeled abductively. I'll leave you with this quote from the book, demonstrating Einstein performing abduction: `Alexander King brought a photographer with him when he interviewed Einstein. "While this character was reloading his camera, Mr. Einstein looked at him earnestly for a moment and said, "you are one of many children, aren't you?" "Yes, I have nine brothers and sisters. What makes you ask" "I guessed it," said Mr. Einstein, "because it is always hard to survive and to get proper attention in such a turmoil of children. Members of large families...don't expect to be seen or to be heard unless they climb right into you lap...I suppose it is probably the ideal training ground for a news photographer." Later,... "I thought he was a mathematician," said the photographer. "I didn't know he was Sherlock Holmes too"'. (p. 56-57). Tim. -- Timothy D. Cain Department of Information and Computer Science UC Irvine cain@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)