Xref: utzoo comp.ai:4134 sci.logic:435
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!wright!silver!vdasigi
From: vdasigi@silver.wright.edu (Venu Dasigi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.logic
Subject: Re: abduction vs. induction
Summary: Peirce's characterization
Message-ID: <526@thor.wright.EDU>
Date: 19 May 89 22:00:43 GMT
References: <1480@crin.crin.fr>
Sender: news@wright.EDU
Reply-To: vdasigi@silver.UUCP (Venu Dasigi)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 32

The following is the way Peirce himself characterized them [Peirce, 31].

Starting with

1. A --> B (if a sample is from this bag, the sample is white.)
2. A (this sample s is from this bag.)
3. B (the sample s is white.)

Deduction amounts to concluding 3 from 1 and 2.
Induction amounts to concluding 1 from 2 and 3.
Abduction amounts to concluding 2 from 1 and 3.

From this simple description, it may be observed that induction involves
generalizing from specific observations, while abduction involves plausibly
explaining facts or observations. While abductive and inductive "conclusions"
are not necessarily valid (and often referred to as "assumptions"), Peirce
notes that abduction and induction are constructive unlike deduction.

Peirce, C.S., 31: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2:
Elements of Logic, Chapter 5, Hartsthorne, C. and P. Weiss (Eds.) Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931.

--- Venu Dasigi
Venu Dasigi      CSNet: vdasigi@cs.wright.edu
US Mail: Dept. of CS&Eng, Wright State U, 3171 Research Blvd, Dayton, OH 45420





Dr. Venu Dasigi      CSNet: vdasigi@cs.wright.edu
US Mail: Dept. of CS&Eng, Wright State U, 3171 Research Blvd, Dayton, OH 45420