Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 10

Re: Beyond ExperimentScott Church

Names are not important of course, except for the purpose of communication.  The important thing is for us to distinguish hypothesis formation from hypothesis evaluation.  Now, there happens to be a long tradition of using the word abduction to distinguish that former, most incipient stage of inquiry and I think it serves communication to preserve that tradition.

Concepts, hypotheses, and theories have to be formed, logically speaking, before they can be evaluated.  In complex inquiries extending over long periods of time, formation, evaluation, and re-formation will of course proceed in cascades of parallel and series operations, but the analytic distinction between elements and mixtures is still worth its salt.

The role of ab-, de-, in-duction in the cycle of inquiry is discussed a bit further in the following article:

Resources

This entry was posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 10

  1. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s