Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation,although not all usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.
This is kind of reasoning that Sherlock Holmes was using all of the time ( although it was called "deduction" there). Good abduction takes a lot of computations, it's not easy. Conclusion from abductive reasoning process isn't certain but if someone is good with it, it's very impressive.There is no IQ tests (to best of my knowledge) that asses abduction. Close to it is old Mastermind game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game) I propose to download Mastermind Code Breaker World Challenge from Google Play and make it into speed test. Choose One Player Classic, 4 pegs and give it 10 games. Then calculate average from it. I did it 3 times. My best result was 47.2 seconds per game. If someone is interested in this abductive reasoning "test" give it a try and post your results
Hi r/philosophy! I've recently found out about the existence of abductive reasoning, and as far as I can understand it's the same thing as inductive reasoning. What's the actual difference?
Inductive reasoning is based basically on extrapolation (you see a pattern and you try to extrapolate), while inductive reasoning is based on your current know + an observation in order to try to guess what's coming happening. In essence, from my point of view, those two seem the same.
Could someone explain to me the deeper difference between these two methods of non-deductice reasoning?
Cigarettes are made of leaves...
Salad is made of leaves...
Therefore, all cigarettes are basically a salad. And therefore, healthy.
How else should we recognize the best explanation among competing possible ones except by identifying the one that answers all the data with the fewest assumptions?
So abductive reasoning (arguing a cause for a set of observations) is used to propose new hypotheses, not to reach deductive conclusions.
The process should be this:
Abductive reasoning can be used to propose new hypotheses.
Those hypotheses can then be inductively argued after repeated occurrences.
Once there are enough repeated occurrences, the inductive conclusion can begin to be accepted as a new rule of reality.
The new rule of reality can then be used to reach deductive conclusions.
In each step, every premise must be sound and every argument must be valid in structure.
Apologists break these rules, saying that “the universe appears to have a designer (the hypothesis), therefore it has a designer (deductive conclusion).
I was just really excited about this!!!
But i promise I won’t be offended if I’m wrong about something or several things here. Like how this could be convincing to an apologist lol.
I understand that Hume rejects the use of inductive reasoning and why, but I am curious as to what he would say about abduction?
From what I've gathered, inductive reasoning looks at the premises and draws the most likely conclusion. Abductive reasoning takes evidence points and draws a most likely conclusion to explain the evidence. Is this right? To me, they kind of sound like the same thing. Can you give a better explanation with some examples. thanks
Your investigating a murder suspect. You've come across a suspected accomplice who is unaware who you are. You need to get information but do you see how demanding, "Where were you and X on Y day?" may not be the best approach?
Social Engineering: ...refers to psychological manipulation of people into performing actions or divulging confidential information. (from wikipedia)
Sherlock Holmes was guilty of doing this in quite a few instances as well. Here is an excerpt from The Hound of the Baskervilles:
"Have you any objection to my looking at your register?" said Holmes.
"Not in the least."
The book showed that two names had been added after that of Baskerville. One was Theophilus Johnson and family, of Newcastle; the other Mrs. Oldmore and maid, of High Lodge, Alton.
"Surely that must be the same Johnson whom I used to know," said Holmes to the porter. "A lawyer, is he not, gray-headed, and walks with a limp?"
"No, sir; this is Mr. Johnson, the coal-owner, a very active gentleman, not older than yourself."
"Surely you are mistaken about his trade?"
"No, sir! he has used this hotel for many years, and he is very well known to us."
"Ah, that settles it. Mrs. Oldmore, too; I seem to remember the name. Excuse my curiosity, but often in calling upon one friend one finds another."
"She is an invalid lady, sir. Her husband was once mayor of Gloucester. She always comes to us when she is in town."
We can see how Holmes manipulated this social interaction to help him eliminate potential suspects and get the mark to divulge information which would have aroused suspicion if asked normally.
I feel that this skill is vital to have as it's very versatile. You can use it to get out of tough situations, you can use it to obtain information, etc.
EDIT: I will continue to expand on this subject, I'm currently at work and just wanted to introduce the idea to those who have not heard of it.
I've been reading a lot of work on Critical Realism in the philosophy of science and methodology of social science. Critical Realists say that their method of reasoning is retroductive and that a retroductive argument "moves from a description of some phenomenon to a description of something which produces it or is a condition for it" (Bhaskar's words). This sounds like the same thing as abductive reasoning (appeals to the best explanation) but specifically assuming a realist ontology.
Are these just different words for the same thing or am I missing some important distinction?
Science does not work by merely extrapolating past observations into the future. This is a fallacy because no amount of past observations alone can tell you how likely something is to occur in the future. It is also mistaken in thinking that science is fundamentally about data and making predictions when it's not. Science is fundamentally about explaining observations.
We do this by making an inference to the best explanation. We start with some observation of the world that is in need of an explanation. Next, we come up with a hypothetical explanation (a theory) for said observation and deduce what it's predictions are. Then we set out to falsify the theory by testing its predictions against reality (an experiment). If the predictions were successfully falsified, then we can throw out that particular hypothesis and go back to the drawing board. However, if the predictions of said theoy were confirmed, then the theory is likely a good explanation for the original observations. The more parsimonious a theory is and the more it's predictions fail to be falsified, the more it's explanatory value increases but will never reach 100% certainty.
Let's assume you found a purse or a backpack. To return it to its rightful owner, you decide to inspect the contents. Think about what you could possibly find in somebody's personal belongings. What would items tell you about a person. Are they male or female? What kind of person are they? What can you tell about the owner of this desk?
Edit: Wow- this was way more responses than I was expecting, thank you! To make this easy, I'll post the information about our subject in the comments. If you have any further speculation or questions, comment and I'll answer! This was fun. We should do more of these.
It would make it a lot easier for me to remember the differences between these concepts if I understood their etymologies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Deduction.2C_induction.2C_and_abduction
I was watching an episode of QI and they mentioned that Sherlock Holmes did not use deductive reasoning. He used abductive reasoning. I tried to learn the difference, but I go crosseyed every time I read the above article. To quote Richard B. Riddick: "Maybe you should pretend like you're talkin' to someone educated in the penal system. In fact, don't pretend."
Hi r/askphilosphy, I recently discovered the existence of abductive reasoning. I'm usually a quick learner and can grasp new concepts but this time I'm having trouble differentiating the two. I've been through most of the google search results, including SEP and nothing seems to make sense to me. Could you guys try dumbing it down to the basics and using examples to explain the difference to me please?
Abductive reasoning is the method of reasoning commonly misidentified as "deductive reasoning" in Sherlock Holmes stories. It is where A (condition) is inferred as an explanation of B (consequence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
I want to make my mind run in this fashion, but years of deductive and inductive reasoning have made it nearly impossible for me to do so.
Any advice on hacking my brain?
I have been reading a little on it using google, but it's not clear enough. Can someone simplify?
For those who have no idea what I am talking about
Btw, one of the proponents of Abductive Reasoning was Sherlock Holmes. (Fictional, I know)
**Thanks in advance. I don't know how many design related queries are asked here, so this is a shot in the dark
