Repository | Journal | Volume | Articles
(2011) Synthese 180 (3).
On the distinction between Peirce's abduction and Lipton's inference to the best explanation
Daniel G. Campos
pp. 419-442
I argue against the tendency in the philosophy of science literature to link abduction to the inference to the best explanation (IBE), and in particular, to claim that Peircean abduction is a conceptual predecessor to IBE. This is not to discount either abduction or IBE. Rather the purpose of this paper is to clarify the relation between Peircean abduction and IBE in accounting for ampliative inference in science. This paper aims at a proper classification—not justification—of types of scientific reasoning. In particular, I claim that Peircean abduction is an in-depth account of the process of generating explanatory hypotheses, while IBE, at least in Peter Lipton’s thorough treatment, is a more encompassing account of the processes both of generating and of evaluating scientific hypotheses. There is then a two-fold problem with the claim that abduction is IBE. On the one hand, it conflates abduction and induction, which are two distinct forms of logical inference, with two distinct aims, as shown by Charles S. Peirce; on the other hand it lacks a clear sense of the full scope of IBE as an account of scientific inference.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3
Full citation:
Campos, D. G. (2011). On the distinction between Peirce's abduction and Lipton's inference to the best explanation. Synthese 180 (3), pp. 419-442.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.