Yes, Peirce mentions three different kinds of explanatory hypotheses:
1) refers to facts unobserved when the hypotheses are made, but which are
possible to observe,
2) refers to facts which are incapable of being observed, for instance
historical facts, and
3) refers to entities which as far as we know are both factually and
theoretically unobservable.
And in addition to that, there seems to be a forth possibility of
hypotheses based on analogy with known (observed) cases. So, at least four
forms of abduction.
Peirce's contribution is that he introduces a logic of discovery.
"Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the
only logical operation which introduces any new idea; for induction does
nothing but determine a value, and deduction merely evolves the necessary
consequences of a pure hypothesis" (5.171). Induction and deduction are
operative in the context of justification.
Best,
Rolf
Den 2015-02-16 14.17 skrev Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>:
>Dear Rolf,
>
>Interesting thoughts. It is likely that there several forms of abduction.
>Depending on how one defines the term, and the examples one can give,
>there may be more than two.
>
>In a field such as design, it seems to me that one would use all forms of
>induction. One may use different forms for different purposes. In some
>cases, we wish to move toward a future that does not exist. In other
>cases, we may simply wish to know the state of affairs. In many instances
>of design, we simply need to know that something is the case about a
>certain material or process. When we are testing a material or process
>for which we don¡¯t have full information, therefore, an aspect of design
>research may entail inquiries that resemble scientific inquiry. The next
>step is to find out how to use what we have learned.
>
>In the large scope of design, therefore, we may use all forms of inquiry,
>including both (or several) forms of abduction.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | Éè¼Æ She Ji. The
>Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
>Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
>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
>
>¡ª
>
>Rolf Johansson wrote:
>
>¡ªsnip¡ª
>
>Oh yes. Adopting a hypothesis as being suggested by facts is abduction.
>
>But, Peirce thinks of two different modes to propose a hypothesis:
>¡°Hypothesis is where we find some very curious circumstance, which would
>be explained by the supposition that it was a case of a certain rule, and
>thereupon adopt that supposition. Or where we find that in certain
>respects two objects have strong resemblance, and that they resemble one
>another strongly in other respects.¡±
>
>Seems like there are two kinds of abduction. One that reason backwards
>from facts to the possible cause ¡ª let's say retroductive abduction (Facts
>that suggest a theory and leads to a conclusion about what the case may
>be). And another one that draws from a repertoire of known cases by
>analogy ¡ª let's say productive abduction. This second mode of abduction
>is pertinent in design, because it can suggest what may be in the future.
>
>¡ªsnip¡ª
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|