CogSci2004 Symposium Abduction and Creative Inferences in Science Lorenzo Magnani ([email protected]) - Organizer, University of Pavia, Italy Atocha Aliseda ([email protected]), UNAM. México City, México Thomas Addis ([email protected]) and David Gooding ([email protected]), University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK and University of Bath, Bath, UK John Woods ([email protected]) and Dov Gabbay ([email protected]), University of British Columbia, CA and King’s College London, UK Joke Meheus ([email protected]), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Matti Sintonen and Sami Paavola ([email protected],[email protected], - Discussants, University of Helsinki, Finland The symposium aims to explore abduction (inference to lays out a useful general framework for discussion of vari- explanatory hypotheses), an important but neglected topic ous kinds of abduction (Magnani), such as model-based in scientific reasoning. The aim is to integrate philosophi- and manipulative abductions. Third, it develops important cal, cognitive, and computational issues. The main thesis is ideas about aspects of abductive reasoning that have been that abduction is a significant kind of scientific reasoning, relatively neglected in philosophy of science, including the helpful in delineating the first principles of a new theory of role of testing in abductive inference (Aliseda), and the science. The status of abduction is very controversial. interrogative model of inquiry and the role of different When dealing with abductive reasoning misinterpretations kinds of why-questions and strategic principles employed and equivocations are common. What are the differences in attempts to find and construct answers also at the com- between abduction and induction? What are the differ- putational level (Sintonen and Paavola, Addis and Good- ences between abduction and the well-known hypothetico- ing). The clarification of these topics aims to increase deductive method? What did Peirce mean when he consid- knowledge about some aspects of explanatory reasoning ered abduction a kind of inference? Does abduction in- and hypothesis formation very relevant in many epistemic volve only the generation of hypotheses or their evaluation tasks. too? Are the criteria for the best explanation in abductive 1. If we stress the concept of model-based and manipu- reasoning epistemic, or pragmatic, or both? How many lative abduction (Magnani), creative inferences in science kinds of abduction are there? The symposium aims to in- can be seen as formed by the application of heuristic (strate- crease knowledge about creative and expert inferences. gic) procedures that involve all kinds of good and bad infer- The study of these high-level methods of abductive rea- ential actions and both internal and external representations, soning is situated at the crossroads of philosophy, episte- and not only the mechanical application of rules. mology, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and 2. Recent logical models can illustrate in a rigorous way logic; that is at the heart of cognitive science. how these (strategic) abductive steps are combined with More than a hundred years ago, the great American deductive steps (Meheus, Woods and Gabbay). philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce coined the term “ab- 3. Common to all abduction problems is a cognitive tar- duction” to refer to inference that involves the generation get that cannot be hit on the basis of what the abducer and evaluation of explanatory hypotheses. The study of presently knows. Abductive hypotheses do not enhance a abductive inference was slow to develop, as logicians con- reasoner’s knowledge. Abduction, accordingly, is igno- centrated on deductive logic and on inductive logic based rance-preserving inference. These abductive processes are on formal calculi such as probability theory. In recent dec- dynamical (Woods and Gabbay). ades, however, there has been renewed interest in abduc- 4. The “abductive steps” are also analyzable in terms of tive inference from two primary sources. Philosophers of responses to surprising singular or general facts, showing a science have recognized the importance of abduction in connection to explanation-seeking why-questions (Sinto- the discovery and evaluation of scientific theories, and nen and Paavola). researchers in artificial intelligence have realized that ab- 5. The importance of experimental verification for hy- duction is a key part of medical diagnosis and other tasks potheses evaluation in science is stressed by the relation- that require finding explanations. Psychologists have been ship between abduction and pragmatism in Peirce (Al- slow to adopt the terms “abduction” and “abductive infer- iseda). ence” but have been showing increasing interest in causal 6. Abduction cannot be thought of in isolation from the and explanatory reasoning. two other type of inference (deduction and induc- Thus abduction is now a key topic of research in phi- tion/validation) identified by Peirce. Computer models of losophy of science. First, this symposium ties together the scientific behaviour and music conversation suggest that in concerns of philosophers of science and logicians, show- simulation of abduction requires the use of mixed strate- ing, for example, the connections between formal models gies using random actions as suggested by game theory and abduction (Meheus, Woods and Gabbay). Second, it (Addis and Gooding). 17.