Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Mastermind player uses abduction to infer the secret colors (top) from summaries (bottom left) of discrepancies in their guesses (bottom right).. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, [1] abductive inference, [1] or retroduction [2]) is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations.
The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, [3] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy. [citation needed]
There are various types of non-deductive reasoning, like inductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. [1] [59] Non-deductive reasoning is more common in everyday life than deductive reasoning. [60] Non-deductive reasoning is ampliative and defeasible.
Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a set of observations. [1] [2] Unlike deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is certain, given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best probable, given the evidence provided.
Deductive reasoning contrasts with non-deductive or ampliative reasoning. For ampliative arguments, such as inductive or abductive arguments , the premises offer weaker support to their conclusion: they indicate that it is most likely, but they do not guarantee its truth.
Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning, such as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Aristotle drew a distinction between logical discursive reasoning (reason proper), and intuitive reasoning , [ 6 ] : VI.7 in which the reasoning process through intuition—however valid—may tend toward the ...
Examples of inquiry, that illustrate the full cycle of its abductive, deductive, and inductive phases, and yet are both concrete and simple enough to be suitable for a first (or zeroth) exposition, are somewhat rare in Peirce's writings, and so let us draw one from the work of fellow pragmatician John Dewey, analyzing it according to the model ...
But even arguments that are not deductively valid may still be good arguments because their premises offer non-deductive support to their conclusions. For such cases, the term ampliative or inductive reasoning is used. [63] Deductive arguments are associated with formal logic in contrast to the relation between ampliative arguments and informal ...