溯因≠溯因推理——如何化解溯因在创新性和逻辑性上的不兼容
|
摘要
溯因被认为兼具创新性和逻辑性,但因两大特性难以兼容而成为争论焦点。通行的解决方案无法根本解决问题并招致了其它困难:将创新思维形式化以便将其纳入逻辑范畴,或彻底否认溯因的逻辑属性,只是从认识论角度对待溯因。若从以下观点出发,便可在充分尊重皮尔斯的前提之下,合理解决不兼容问题:溯因与溯因推理分别来自不同的概念领域,后者是前者的子集;属于溯因却不属于溯因推理的部分被称作溯因洞见。洞见具有创新性,而推理具有逻辑性。
Abduction is considered to be both innovative and logical,but has been criticized for the incompatibility of these attributes. Solutions to the imcompatibility are divided into two paths,i.e. formalizing innovative thinking in order to incorporate it into a logical category or to expand the intension of "inference"to try to include innovative attributes. However,the above paths are all unsuccessful and even lead to other problems. After a detailed analysis of the above-mentioned approaches,this paper presents a new path,that is,abduction and abductive inference are from different concept areas,instead of being treated the same. The relationship is that abduction consists of abductive inference and abductive insight. The insight is innovative while the inference is logical. The incompatibility puzzle is thus reasonably figured out without violating Pierce's core ideas.
Abduction is considered to be both innovative and logical,but has been criticized for the incompatibility of these attributes. Solutions to the imcompatibility are divided into two paths,i.e. formalizing innovative thinking in order to incorporate it into a logical category or to expand the intension of "inference"to try to include innovative attributes. However,the above paths are all unsuccessful and even lead to other problems. After a detailed analysis of the above-mentioned approaches,this paper presents a new path,that is,abduction and abductive inference are from different concept areas,instead of being treated the same. The relationship is that abduction consists of abductive inference and abductive insight. The insight is innovative while the inference is logical. The incompatibility puzzle is thus reasonably figured out without violating Pierce's core ideas.
引文
(1)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935;vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.106.以下《皮尔斯文集》作同理标记)
(2)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935;vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.189.
(3)王彦:《论溯因推理及其在科学中的运用形式》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》1986年第3期。
(1)黄闪闪:《科学辩护的辩护:从人工智能中的溯因推理看》,《自然辩证法研究》2016年第1期。
(2)Gabbay D M,Woods J.The Reach of Abduction.North Holland,Amsterdam,Volume 2 of A Practical Logic of Cognitive Systems.2005,p.1.
(3)Frankfurt H G.“Peirce's Notion of Abduction”.Journal of Philosophy,1958,55(14):593-597.
(4)Nikolas K.“So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean”.International Journal of Philosophical Studies,2000,8(3):271-295.
(5)Anderson D R.“The evolution of Peirce's concept of abduction”.Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society,1986,22(2):145-164.
(6)转引自Hoffmann M.“Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction”.Foundations of science,1999,4(3):271-305.
(1)Magnani L“.Is abduction ignorance-preserving?Conventions,models and fictions in science”.Logic Journal of Igpl,2013,21(6):882-914.
(2)Hempel C.Philosophy of Natural Science.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-hall,1966,p.15.
(3)Popper K R.Conjectures and refutations:The growth of scientific knowledge,2002,p.536.
(4)Achinstein P.Inference of scientific laws.Stuwer R.H.Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.,1970,pp.87-111.
(5)Reichenbach H.The rise of scientific philosophy.LA:University of California Press,1973,p.231.
(6)Mcauliffe W H B.“How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation?”Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society:AQuarterly Journal in American Philosophy,2015,51(3):300-319.
(1)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.4,p.223.
(2)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.4,p.223.
(3)Stjernfelt F.Natural propositions:The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns.Boston:Docent Press,2014,p.276.
(4)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.181.
(5)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.7,p.220.
(6)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.188.
(7)Aliseda A.Abductive reasoning.Berlin:Springer,2006,pp.95-129.
(1)Kellogg,Ronald T.“Verbal,visual,and spatial working memory in written language production”.Acta Psychologica,2007,124(3):382-297.
(2)Ericsson K A,Kintsch W.“Long-term working memory”.Psychological review,1995,102(2):211-245.
(1)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.113.
(2)McK aughan D J.“From ugly duckling to swan:CS Peirce,abduction,and the pursuit of scientific theories”.Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society:A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy,2008,44(3):446-468.
(3)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.602.
(4)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.7,p.219.
(5)Harman G.“Inference to the Best Explanation”.Philosophical Review,1965(74):88-95.
(6)Lipton P.Inference to the Best Explanation(2nd Edition).2004,p.58.
(2)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935;vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.189.
(3)王彦:《论溯因推理及其在科学中的运用形式》,《吉林大学社会科学学报》1986年第3期。
(1)黄闪闪:《科学辩护的辩护:从人工智能中的溯因推理看》,《自然辩证法研究》2016年第1期。
(2)Gabbay D M,Woods J.The Reach of Abduction.North Holland,Amsterdam,Volume 2 of A Practical Logic of Cognitive Systems.2005,p.1.
(3)Frankfurt H G.“Peirce's Notion of Abduction”.Journal of Philosophy,1958,55(14):593-597.
(4)Nikolas K.“So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean”.International Journal of Philosophical Studies,2000,8(3):271-295.
(5)Anderson D R.“The evolution of Peirce's concept of abduction”.Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society,1986,22(2):145-164.
(6)转引自Hoffmann M.“Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction”.Foundations of science,1999,4(3):271-305.
(1)Magnani L“.Is abduction ignorance-preserving?Conventions,models and fictions in science”.Logic Journal of Igpl,2013,21(6):882-914.
(2)Hempel C.Philosophy of Natural Science.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-hall,1966,p.15.
(3)Popper K R.Conjectures and refutations:The growth of scientific knowledge,2002,p.536.
(4)Achinstein P.Inference of scientific laws.Stuwer R.H.Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.,1970,pp.87-111.
(5)Reichenbach H.The rise of scientific philosophy.LA:University of California Press,1973,p.231.
(6)Mcauliffe W H B.“How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation?”Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society:AQuarterly Journal in American Philosophy,2015,51(3):300-319.
(1)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.4,p.223.
(2)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.4,p.223.
(3)Stjernfelt F.Natural propositions:The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns.Boston:Docent Press,2014,p.276.
(4)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.181.
(5)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.7,p.220.
(6)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.188.
(7)Aliseda A.Abductive reasoning.Berlin:Springer,2006,pp.95-129.
(1)Kellogg,Ronald T.“Verbal,visual,and spatial working memory in written language production”.Acta Psychologica,2007,124(3):382-297.
(2)Ericsson K A,Kintsch W.“Long-term working memory”.Psychological review,1995,102(2):211-245.
(1)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.113.
(2)McK aughan D J.“From ugly duckling to swan:CS Peirce,abduction,and the pursuit of scientific theories”.Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society:A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy,2008,44(3):446-468.
(3)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.5,p.602.
(4)Peirce C S.Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(vol 1-6),edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1931-1935,vol 7-8,edited by arthur Burks,Cambridge,Massachusetts,1958,p.7,p.219.
(5)Harman G.“Inference to the Best Explanation”.Philosophical Review,1965(74):88-95.
(6)Lipton P.Inference to the Best Explanation(2nd Edition).2004,p.58.