The relation of Peirce’s abduction to inference to the best explanation

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Chinese Semiotic Studies Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1515/css-2024-2022
Yi Jiang
{"title":"The relation of Peirce’s abduction to inference to the best explanation","authors":"Yi Jiang","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is closely related to his conception of abduction. The acquisition of the actual effect required by the method of scientific reasoning expressed by Peirce’s maxim must be accomplished by resorting to abductive logic. Abductive logic starts from a surprising fact, derives a hypothetical explanation about that fact, and finally arrives at the possibility that the hypothesis is true. This is the process of abductive reasoning, as provided by Peirce, which is distinct from induction and deduction and generates explanatory views. Peirce opposed a unified and unchangeable concept of causality. He used different interpretations of causality to illustrate the considerable differences in people’s understanding of cause and effect in different periods. The concept of pragmatism, as developed from the pragmatic maxim to abduction and then to scientific inference to the best explanation, is precisely what Peirce initially proposed, and inference to the best explanation is the starting point and the final result of the pragmatic maxim.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is closely related to his conception of abduction. The acquisition of the actual effect required by the method of scientific reasoning expressed by Peirce’s maxim must be accomplished by resorting to abductive logic. Abductive logic starts from a surprising fact, derives a hypothetical explanation about that fact, and finally arrives at the possibility that the hypothesis is true. This is the process of abductive reasoning, as provided by Peirce, which is distinct from induction and deduction and generates explanatory views. Peirce opposed a unified and unchangeable concept of causality. He used different interpretations of causality to illustrate the considerable differences in people’s understanding of cause and effect in different periods. The concept of pragmatism, as developed from the pragmatic maxim to abduction and then to scientific inference to the best explanation, is precisely what Peirce initially proposed, and inference to the best explanation is the starting point and the final result of the pragmatic maxim.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮尔斯的归纳与最佳解释推论的关系
皮尔斯的实用主义格言与他的归纳概念密切相关。皮尔斯格言所表达的科学推理方法所要求的实际效果的获得,必须借助归纳逻辑来完成。归纳逻辑从一个令人吃惊的事实出发,推导出关于该事实的假设性解释,最后得出假设为真的可能性。这就是皮尔斯提出的归纳推理过程,它不同于归纳和演绎,产生的是解释性观点。皮尔斯反对统一不变的因果关系概念。他用对因果关系的不同解释来说明不同时期人们对因果关系的理解存在很大差异。从实用格言到诱导,再到科学推论到最佳解释,发展出的实用主义概念正是皮尔士最初提出的,而推论到最佳解释是实用格言的出发点和最终结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chinese Semiotic Studies
Chinese Semiotic Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
The role of the normative sciences in the evolution of Peirce’s pragmatism Football statues and semiotics The relation of Peirce’s abduction to inference to the best explanation Peirce’s philosophy of language Pragmatism, logic, and manuscript R318
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1