Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1

This is a Survey of blog and wiki posts on three elementary forms of inference, as recognized by a logical tradition that extends from Aristotle through C.S. Peirce.  Particular attention is paid to the ways these inferential rudiments combine to form the more complex patterns of analogy and inquiry.

Blog Dialogs

More to be added later …

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abduction, Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Dewey, Discovery, Doubt, Fixation of Belief, Functional Logic, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information, Inquiry, Invention, Logic, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Morphism, Paradigmata, Paradigms, Pattern Recognition, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Surveys, Syllogism, Triadic Relations, Zeroth Order Logic and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1

  1. abbeboulah says:

    Isn’t it time to include the argument pattern that is used in design, planning, and policy-making discussions?  (Most arguments about what we ought to do (arguably as many as about what is the case …) can be reduced to variations of that pattern.  As far as I know, it has not been acknowledged in the vast literature of logic and rhetoric, probably because it is not ‘valid’ or ‘conclusive’ from a formal logic perspective and because its ‘conclusion’ (the plan proposal) and at least one of its premisses are ‘deontic’ claims to which the logic criteria ‘true’ / ‘false’ (not even ‘probability’) do not properly apply?  Also, planning decisions are not fully determined by one single ‘clinching’ argument, but must be reached by deliberation (weighing) all arguments for and against the proposed plan, as the colloquial expression ‘weighing the pros and cons’ indicates.  More recently, it has been receiving some attention and called ‘abductive’ (incorrectly, in my opinion) and ‘conductive’ by a few authors.  I have written about its structure and evaluation e.g. in INFORMAL LOGIC (Dec. 2011:  “The structure and evaluation of planning arguments”.)

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