FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2049308210> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2049308210 endingPage "156" @default.
• W2049308210 startingPage "155" @default.
• W2049308210 abstract "Reviewed by: Abductive Reasoning David Hitchcock (bio) Douglas Walton . Abductive Reasoning University of Alabama Press. xvi, 304. US $40.00 Abductive reasoning is reasoning from observed data to a hypothesis that would explain them. A famous example is Kepler's inference from a mass of data about the positions of the planets at various times to the hypothesis that they travel in elliptical orbits about the sun. As philosophers of science have only recently begun to appreciate, such reasoning to a possible explanatory hypothesis is common in scientific research. It is also common in legal contexts, for example in determining what caused a particular accident, as well as in medical diagnosis. Researchers in artificial intelligence have incorporated models of it in various expert systems for use in law and medicine. In this study, Douglas Walton summarizes and synthesizes for the non-specialist the scholarly literature on abductive reasoning, and presents his own theory of how one should evaluate abductive reasoning as strong or weak. Abductive reasoning generates a possible explanation. According to Walton, explanation is the transmission of understanding: an explanation communicates information that enables its recipient to infer the thing explained. Thus Walton implicitly equates understanding something with being able to infer it from information at one's disposal. For an explanation to be successful, the recipient must understand its language and must have the background information needed to make the inferences to the thing explained. These requirements, he holds, can be met by a procedural model of rationality according to which the person requesting an explanation asks a series of questions until completely satisfied. The inferences involved in the understanding that is acquired through this process are often defeasible, meaning that they can be defeated (shown to be illegitimate) by further information; for example, from the fact that a moving car goes into a skid one can infer that it will leave tire marks on the pavement, but this inference can be defeated by further information that the pavement was wet or icy or snow-covered. On the basis of these considerations, Walton proposes what he calls a 'query-driven' model of abductive reasoning. He recognizes two forms of abductive reasoning, whose strength is proportional to the extent to which its associated 'critical questions' receive satisfactory answers in an ongoing dialogue. One form reasons from the fact that some account E explains given data d better than its identified competitors to its being the most plausible account. Its critical questions are: How successful is E as an explanation of D? How much more successful is E than its identified competitors? How thorough has the search for alternative explanations been? Would it be better to investigate further before making a commitment for or against E? The other form reasons in a corresponding way from the comparative superiority of an argument from D to E, and has analogous [End Page 155] critical questions. The components of either form emerge in a dialogue with four phases: the dialogue setting, explanation attempts, evaluation of explanations, closure. Walton's dialogue model captures the open-endedness of the search for explanations. It highlights the defeasibility of abductive reasoning, the practical impossibility of absolute proof that our favoured explanation is correct. But it needs to be amplified and qualified. More criteria are needed for what makes an explanation successful. We need to distinguish the sort of explanation that transmits already acquired understanding - e.g., of how to get a photocopier to make double-sided copies - from the sort that expresses newly acquired understanding - e.g., of what caused a particular accident or why a cloudless sky is blue. And the model needs to take account of the fact that ability to infer the occurrence of a phenomenon is neither necessary nor sufficient for understanding it; for example, one can understand why an atom of a radioactive isotope decays without being able to infer it from the data, and one can infer from hearing thunder that lightning just struck without understanding why the lightning struck. But the model, as Walton himself points out, provides a framework for investigating outstanding problems about abductive reasoning. And his book is a useful discussion of a wide range of scholarship..." @default.
• W2049308210 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2049308210 creator A5030144172 @default.
• W2049308210 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2049308210 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2049308210 title "Abductive Reasoning (review)" @default.
• W2049308210 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/utq.2006.0109" @default.
• W2049308210 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2049308210 type Work @default.
• W2049308210 sameAs 2049308210 @default.
• W2049308210 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2049308210 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2049308210 hasAuthorship W2049308210A5030144172 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C150846664 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C161301231 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C166088908 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C183521366 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C201717286 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C207963374 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C2992562121 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C37335422 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C79585631 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConcept C97364631 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C111472728 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C138885662 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C150846664 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C154945302 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C15744967 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C161301231 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C166088908 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C183521366 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C188147891 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C201717286 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C207963374 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C2776214188 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C2992562121 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C31972630 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C37335422 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C41008148 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C79585631 @default.
• W2049308210 hasConceptScore W2049308210C97364631 @default.
• W2049308210 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2049308210 hasLocation W20493082101 @default.
• W2049308210 hasOpenAccess W2049308210 @default.
• W2049308210 hasPrimaryLocation W20493082101 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W140670996 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W1974339330 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W1974731394 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2010340556 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2049308210 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2490471763 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2511370536 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2793985749 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W2911958330 @default.
• W2049308210 hasRelatedWork W3176752532 @default.
• W2049308210 hasVolume "75" @default.
• W2049308210 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2049308210 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2049308210 magId "2049308210" @default.
• W2049308210 workType "article" @default.