Abductive reasoning

About: Abductive reasoning is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1917 publications have been published within this topic receiving 44645 citations. The topic is also known as: abduction & abductive inference.

Psycholinguistic Model of Abductive Reasoning in Fiction Narrative Discourse

Abstract: Aim: The paper aims at defining the role of abductive reasoning in the reader’s interpretation of English fiction narrative text. Three research questions are defined as follows: (1) what is the nature of sign interpretation in its application to textual analysis? (2) what linguistic factors determine the use of abduction in the interpretation of signs? (3) how to apply abductive reasoning in the process of reading and interpretation in EFL teaching practice? Abduction is viewed here as a type of reasoning in the three-componential semiotic model of argument and as a deductive hypothesis, responsible for implicit meaning processing (Charles Peirce). Materials and Methods: The paper states the four-stage process of abduction to be a basic inquiry method of the reader on his way to fiction world interpretation. By providing a step-by-step analysis of patterns of abductive reasoning in a short story “Happy Endings” by Margaret Atwood, the paper conducts a textual analysis of narratives in terms of subjectivity theory of communication, reflecting the mechanisms of reader’s manipulation with information as a dynamic semiotic process of interpretation, limited by habit (final interpretant). Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 24 May 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202005.0398.v1 © 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Results: Results of the research of the mental operations employed by the reader while processing textual information proved a strong interrelation of reading with writing, and mental sub-processes and operations. As the empirical research shows, the process of conceptualization demands a higher level of cognitive maturity on the part of the reader/writer, as it presupposes “knowledge transforming” operations as opposed to “knowledge telling” strategy (Paltridge et. al. 2009: 20). To represent this process schematically, scholars assign the reader/interpretant the central role in the process of triadic sign interpretation, as he makes the further interpretation possible by a reference to the environment (Scheibmayer 2004: 305). The interpretant (I) and Representamen (R1) refer to the same object (O); as Representamen (R2) stands in the same relation to object, represented by Representamen (R1) and to the system (O2), where it acquires the functions of the observer (Sonnenhauser, 2008: 331). Conclusions: The conclusions coming from this research lead to the recognition of the second-level (or third level) observer as a source of subjectivity. And subjectivity, in its turn, arises from the difference in interpretation of signs recognized and established by the observer (Maturana & Varela, 1980). Thus, the process of differentiation by the observer is expected to fix the possible existence of other meanings, produced by the relations of the interpretant to the environment. This is the notion of thirdness. And, therefore, “sign situation”, plays the role of marking the pairs of differentiation in semiotic interpretation of signs. And it is this differential potential of indexical components of signs, and not their relatedness of meaning, which makes communication dynamic.

Explanatory relations in arbitrary logics based on satisfaction systems, cutting and retraction

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to introduce a new framework for defining abductive reasoning operators based on a notion of retraction in arbitrary logics defined as satisfaction systems. We show how this framework leads to the design of explanatory relations satisfying properties of abductive reasoning, and discuss its application to several logics. This extends previous work on propositional logics where retraction was defined as a morphological erosion. Here weaker properties are required for retraction, leading to a larger set of suitable operators for abduction for different logics.

Reasoning About Belief Revision

Abstract: The theory of belief revision developed by Carlos Alchourron, Peter Gardenfors and David Makinson (AGM) is one of the most influential and well-investigated theories of rational belief change; for a comprehensive presentation and references see Hansson (1999) and Rott (2001). This highly successful research program co-exists with another major research program concerned with the belief and knowledge of rational agents, namely doxastic and epistemic logic. With respect to epistemic logic, in Knowledge in Flux (1988), Peter Gardenfors remarked:

On Relationships between Induction and Abduction: A Logical Point of View

Abstract: The concepts of inductive and abductive reasonings have led and still lead to many open discussions. Many works are based on these reasonings, for example in machine learning (e.g. (Kodratoff and Ganascia, 1986; Michalski, 1983a)), inductive logic programming (see (Muggleton and De Raedt, 1994) for a survey), abductive logic programming (e.g. (Poole et al., 1987)), or resolution of diagnosis problems (see (Cox and Pietrzykowski, 1987; de Kleer and Williams, 1987; Poole, 1989b) for various approaches to abduction). However, many of these works deal with only one of these reasonings. When we attempt to relate induction and abduction, the obvious differences between the various approaches make this task difficult. How can we, for example, relate induction characterized by logical conditions of adequacy of the relation “observation O confirms hypothesis H ” (Hempel, 1945) with the ABDUCE procedure in logic programming (Console et al., 1991b)?