Introduction to Abduction in Mathematics

I examine and resolve an exegetical dichotomy between two main interpretations of Peirce’s theory of abduction, namely, the Generative Interpretation and the Pursuitworthiness Interpretation. According to the former, abduction is the instinctive process of generating explanatory hypotheses through a mental faculty called insight. According to the latter, abduction is a rule-governed procedure for determining the relative pursuitworthiness of available hypotheses and adopting the worthiest one for further investigation—such as empirical tests—based on economic considerations. It is shown that the Generative Interpretation is inconsistent with a fundamental fact of logic for Peirce—i.e., abduction is a kind of inference—and the Pursuitworthiness Interpretation is flawed and inconsistent with Peirce’s naturalistic explanation for the possibility of science and his view about the limitations of classical scientific method. Changing the exegetical locus classicus from the logical form of abduction to insight and economy of research, I argue for the Unified Interpretation according to which abduction includes both instinctive hypotheses-generation and rule-governed hypotheses-ranking. I show that the Unified Interpretation is immune to the objections raised successfully against the Generative and the Pursuitworthiness interpretations.

/pdf/beyond-the-instinct-inference-dichotomy-a-unified-2w5nbfptvk.pdf

Introduction to Abduction in Mathematics

References

Beyond the Instinct-Inference Dichotomy: A Unified Interpretation of Peirce's Theory of Abduction

Abduction in the everyday practice of science: the logic of unintended experiments

Related Papers (5)

Philosophical reasoning about science: a quantitative, digital study

Introduction to Abduction in Mathematics

Integrating Abduction and Inference to the Best Explanation

A Defense of Analogy Inference as Sui generis

Peirce and the Autonomy of Abductive Reasoning