JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  March 2016

PHD-DESIGN March 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Abduction, Induction, and Deduction

From:

Adam Girard <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:58:31 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (266 lines)

Dear Ken and All,

Thanks for this post. I think that understanding logic is important to
making design arguments, and it would be great if more was written to make
this explicit in the relationship between science and design.

There are a few resources that may be helpful in addition to those listed
by Ken.

In the design context, this was addressed in:
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking”and its application. *Design
Studies*, *32*(6), 521–532.

Additional resources that I found useful include:
Mans, D., & Preyer, G. (1999). On Contemporary Developments in the Theory
of Argumentation. In *Reasoning and argumentation* (Vol. 13).
Protosociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research.

Walton, D. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. *Informal
Logic*, *21*(2). Retrieved from
http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2241


Regards,

Adam

-- 
Adam Girard, MLIS
Ph.D. Student
School of Information and Library Studies
Ph.D. affiliate, UCD Social Science Research Centre
University College Dublin
Ireland

Phone: +353 1 716 7077
Email: [log in to unmask]




>
> Date:    Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:57:03 +0100
> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Abduction, Induction, and Deduction
>
> Dear All,
>
> Several times in the past few days, colleagues have written to ask for
> material on abduction, induction, and deduction — and the differences among
> them. Because this issue comes up frequently in research seminars and
> doctoral courses, I have gathered my notes from different replies to share
> them with the list.
>
> There is a great deal of confusion on the issue of abduction. Put simply,
> it is a way to describe hypothesis formation. We often hear people describe
> induction as “inference to best explanation,” but this is not entirely
> accurate. While inductive inference is an inference to a *likely* best
> explanation, an inductive inference does not tell you whether the
> explanation is true, valid or correct.
>
> Many of the false convictions that are now being overturned through DNA
> and other forms of scientific evidence were originally obtained by police
> officers or prosecutors who relied on abduction inference rather than hard
> evidence. One reads many versions of this story:
>
> A crime takes place. Person X — or someone who looks like Person X — is
> seen in the area around the time of the crime. Despite the absence of hard
> evidence, if there are no other suspects for the crime, the *likely* best
> explanation is that Person X committed the crime. It is true that a crime
> has been committed. And it is therefore true that someone must be guilty.
> The problem with many convictions is that closing the case requires
> ascribing guilt.
>
> Abduction also plays a role in many of the great tragedies of history.
> When much of the world believed in witches and witchcraft, people were
> killed as witches through accusations based on abduction. Now that we no
> longer believe in witchcraft, we recognise the accusations of witchcraft as
> false. Those accusations were often based on abductive inference.
>
> Abduction is good when used properly.
>
> Abduction had a role in many scientific breakthroughs and technological
> developments.
>
> Scientists test abductive inferences. Inventions work — or they don’t.
>
> It is incorrect to say that designers somehow achieve results through
> abduction while scientists use induction and deduction. Designers more
> often fail through abduction than they succeed. And scientists more often
> find that hypotheses fail than succeed. The point is to find what works,
> then find out why it works, without mistaking intuition or inspiration for
> valid conclusions.
>
> The short version of the argument is that scientists and scholars use
> induction and deduction to achieve reliable scientific or scholarly
> results, where designers use abduction to achieve reliable outcomes. This
> is not so. Abduction is not a logic of justification, and reliability lies
> within the logic of justification.
>
> It is also wrong to suggest that scientists and scholars do not use
> abduction. They do. Everyone uses abduction to some degree — in daily life
> as well as in research. Abduction involves hypothesis formation, but an
> hypothesis is only an idea without evidence to determine whether the idea
> has substance. Abductive inference it not reliable. It is indicative. Just
> as one must test hypotheses, one must test abduction to determine whether
> an abductive inference is correct.
>
> Mautner’s Dictionary of Philosophy (2000: 1) explains abduction well:
>
> “abduction n. 1 (in Aristotle) a syllogistic inference from a major
> premiss which is certain, and a merely probable minor premiss, to a merely
> probable conclusion (Prior Analytics 2,25 69a 2o ff.).
>
> “2 (in C. S. Peirce) reasoning of this form: (a) facts of type B have been
> observed; (b) a true statement of the form If A then B can explain B.
> Therefore, probably A. Peirce called this pattern abduction, believing that
> he used the term in the Aristotelian sense. He held that abduction is the
> standard form of setting up scientific hypotheses, and can count as the
> third kind of inference, together with induction and deduction.Since then,
> it has been stressed that what makes A probable is that it is the best
> explanation we can think of. Scientifically useful abduction is, then,
> INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION. The general form of such an inferenceis:
> (1) D is a collection of data; (2) H (a hypothesis) would, if true, explain
> D ; (3) no other hypothesis can explain D as well as H does (4) Therefore,
> H is probably true. Of course, abductive reasoning is common also in
> everyday life, whenever we try to find answers to questions why something
> is the case. Syn. retroduction.”
>
> In design, many people refer to the great logician and scientists C. S.
> Peirce without actually reading Peirce. For Peirce, abduction belongs
> within the logic of discovery. One requires more than abduction for the
> logic of justification.
>
> To see what Peirce (1998) has to say, I suggest the excellent collection
> from Indiana University Press.
>
> Igor Douven (2011) wrote an excellent article on abduction in the Stanford
> Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#DedIndAbd <
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#DedIndAbd>
>
> He also wrote a supplementary article on C. S. Peirce’s views
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/peirce.html <
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/peirce.html>
>
> Robin Smith’s (2015) discussion on induction and deduction appear in the
> article on Aristotle’s logic
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#IndDed <
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#IndDed>
>
> The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy also has a good article on
> induction and deduction
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/ <http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/>
>
> Mautner (2000: 145) describes deduction this way:
>
> “deduction n. The premisses in a deduction do not have to be general or
> necessary. But in that respect, older concepts of deduction differed: 1 a
> deduction is a valid inference from necessary premisses. This is a
> traditional concept of deduction. Descartes defined it as an operation by
> which we have insight into something which follows necessarily from other
> things that are known with certainty “Rule III in Regles pour la direction
> de l'esprit (Rules for the direction of the mind)”. 2 a deduction is a
> valid inference from more general premisses to a less general i.e. a more
> specific conclusion. It is contrasted with induction which is an inference
> from particular instances to a general conclusion. This is the classical
> Aristotelian concept. 3. (in older jurisprudence) a deduction establishes
> the legal in contradistinction to the factual grounds for action in a court
> of law. This is the sense used metaphorically by Kant in the Critique of
> Pure Reason. His ‘transcendental deduction’ of the categories is the
> justification of the application of the categories to objects, i.e. the
> account of why the categories necessarily apply to all objects of
> experience. 4 in the modern sense, a valid deduction or a valid deductive
> inference is one in which the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the
> premisses so that the conclusion cannot be false if all the premisses arc
> true. In contrast the conclusion of a sound INDUCTION is supported by the
> premisses and may be very probable given the premisses, but it can be false
> even if all the premisses are true.”
>
> Here is Mautner's (2000: 273) discussion of induction:
>
> “induction n. inference from a finite number of particular cases to a
> further case or to a general conclusion. For instance if a number of ravens
> have been observed all of which are black and if no raven has been
> encountered that is not black the inferences to the conclusion that the
> next observed raven will be black or to the general conclusion that all
> ravens are black are inductive inferences. Many inductive inferences seem
> plausible some indeed seem extremely plausible but the truth of all the
> premisses can never guarantee the truth of the conclusion since the
> conclusion goes beyond what is given in the premisses. In this respect they
> are contrasted with deductive inferences in which the truth of all the
> premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Aristotle introduced the
> concept of induction in the Posterior Analytics. It has been claimed,
> however, that there ‘induction’ does not mean a process of reasoning but
> the examination of instances that results in a common feature coming to
> view.”
>
> To summarise, valid deductive conclusions drawn from correct premisses
> lead to correct conclusions. It is nevertheless possible to have *logically
> valid* but *incorrect* conclusions. Lewis Carroll’s playful logic games
> offer delightfully silly examples of logically correct statements that are
> nevertheless false of silly.
>
> One may reach inductive conclusions, but there is no way to render
> induction universally reliable in the same way that deduction is
> universally reliable.
>
> Abduction is useful, but an abductive inference may useful without being
> correct. One valid use of abduction is that it may be a step in ruling
> conclusions out rather than in reaching them.
>
> Designers who solve problems do best when they use multiple methods to
> reach conclusions, and they reach conclusions best when they test and
> examine both premisses and outcomes.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> --
>
> References
>
> Douven, Igor. 2011. “Abduction." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> (Spring 2011 Edition). Edward N. Zalta, ed. URL
> http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/ <
> http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/>
>
> Mautner, Thomas. 2000. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. London:
> Penguin Books.
>
> Peirce, C. S. 1998. The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings.
> Volume 2. 1893-1913. Edited by the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington,
> Indiana: Indiana University Press.
>
> Smith, Robin. 2015. "Aristotle's Logic." The Stanford Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). Edward N. Zalta, ed. URL
> http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/aristotle-logic/ <
> http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/aristotle-logic/>
>
> —
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji
> University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL:
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager