Analyzing the article: abduction. The inference of the discovery
This article is of an argumentative type, the author of the text cites the contributions madeand the role that it fulfills in the process of scientific discovery.
Therefore, we find three relevant terms that are induction, deduction and abduction and the author focuses on the latter because he affirms that it is a path to achieve new knowledge.
Likewise, reference is made to important elements of abduction such as: the rule, this refers to explanatory hypothesis that according to Peirce assumes it as a conjecture (the best explanation or the most likely);The result is constituted by a series of elements and these in turn refer to the case, but the case remains hidden as something that must be discovered.
In addition, a comparison is made between the induction that goes from the particular to the general and relates what is observed with what can be seen in the future, the abduction explains the hypothesis traveling from the effect (it is shown in the observation) to the cause (It remains hidden) also relates the observable with something that may never be observed.
On the other hand, bar. "Concedural as an inference that elapses from the consequence of the background, but not necessarily should be assimilated to the effect and the cause". To make greater clarity the following example is presented;If a person sees the subway through a station, he assumes that he passed through a previous station, but nothing enables to believe that this fact is the cause of the presence of the subway at the time that is observed.
In the same way, the author does not show according to Klimovsky (1995) and Hidalgo (1998), who nominate the potential explanation as a nomological-deductive class, since the author affirms that the background conditions are actually unknown (although they areassumed them), being such an inference, from a logical perspective, a fallacy of the affirmation of the consequent.
On the other hand, that role that abduction in the discoveries process can be evidence.
Similarly, the author ends up stating that he does not agree with Mill, who conceives experimental methods as methods to discover causal connections and to demonstrate the truth of the hypotheses, and Klimovsky which considers induction in a broad sense, is the intellective processwhereby the scientist, based on experience data, accesses theories that allow them to explain them, that is, these authors through their arguments defends that they are facing inductive reasoning, on the contrary the author affirms that it would beSpeaking of abductive reasoning.
Finally, the author concludes that abduction appears as an instrument of knowledge search and this does not melt only on scientific truths, but on the subject’s praxis. In addition, it is an inference not necessary, however, it points out a path to follow and that path is the most possible among the possible.
In summary, I can say that abduction appears to provide us with the possibility of approaching a premise differently, that is, the rule should not necessarily be, because in some cases it can be imagined and thus carry out the explanation of the hypothesis managingknowledge.
Leave feedback