ABDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: CHARACTERISTICS, STRUCTURE AND EXAMPLES - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2024

The abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises. Contrary to what happens in deductive reasoning, in this process plausible conclusions are drawn but cannot be verified.

For example: Premise 1; all people are mortal. Premise 2; Antonio is a person. Conclusion: Antonio is mortal. The conclusions drawn with this type of argument are the most probable, but they harbor certain doubts. Although this is not perceived in this first example (Antonio is mortal) it will be seen in the following.

The philosopher and scientist Charles Peirce (1839-1914) claimed that an abductive argument is a kind of conjecture. This means that an abductive argument, also known as an “argument from the best explanation”, is often used when you want to explain a phenomenon within a discussion. Generally, this type of argument is presented in discussions that have different hypotheses about one or more events.

Within these discussions, whoever argues defends some of the hypotheses because they consider it the best possible option.

When is the abductive argument used?

Due to the simple logic of abductive arguments, they are commonly used in everyday life. In fact, most people use them daily without realizing it. Some link this reasoning with common sense.

Fernando Soler Toscano, in his text Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic (2012), affirms that the abductive argument bears similarities to the syllogisms determined by Aristotle (384-322 BC). This is because in both cases it starts from a reasoning in which a series of statements are established that necessarily lead to others.

Bust of Aristotle. Source: Museo nazionale romano di palazzo Altemps, via Wikimedia Commons.

For this reason, Aristotle considered abductive reasoning to be a kind of syllogism. This method was used repeatedly by the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, a well-established detective in popular culture known for his keen intuition.

In the novel A Study in Scarlet (written by AC Doyle in 1887), Holmes discovers that one of the characters came from Afghanistan due to the fact that the man had a martial air and his face was noticeably tan compared to his wrists. This type of approach corresponds to the abductive argument.

Characteristics of the abductive argument

Increase the argumentative knowledge

The main characteristic of the abductive argument (which differentiates it from other forms of logical inference such as induction and deduction) is that it increases the knowledge of the argumentative, since it allows him to know something that he did not know before.

For example, it is known that all the beans in bag N are white, therefore, it can be hypothesized that probably a set of white beans belongs to said bag; this is affirmed starting from the premise that the beans are white. Thanks to this premise, the plaintiff now knows that the group of white beans may come from bag N.

It allows to forecast and build new ideas

Likewise, abduction is also characterized because it not only allows hypothesis, but also predicts and builds new ideas.

Because of this, Charles Pierce considered the abductive argument to be the most complex reasoning within logical inferences; only this method is dedicated to cognitive enrichment.

However, it is necessary to note that adduction is subject to the possibility of error. That is, within the abductive argument there is a margin where there is always room for a possible mistake.

Structure

The abductive argument allows to generate new ideas. Source: pixabay.com

The following is the basic structure of an abductive argument. This can have two or more premises:

First premise: N is an event or a set of events.

Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.

Conclusion: G is the explanation for N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

Examples of abductive arguments

Some examples of abductive argument are the following:

one-

First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.

Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.

Conclusion: So Néstor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

two-

First premise: The weather is clear and sunny.

Second premise: When the sky is clear, my wife and I go for a walk.

Conclusion: Today my wife and I are going for a walk.

3-

First premise: A large part of the young population uses drugs.

Second premise: The young population has free time.

Conclusion: The young population that has a lot of free time consumes drugs.

4-

First premise: The kitchen floor woke up wet.

Second premise: The refrigerator has a fault.

Conclusion: The kitchen floor woke up wet from the failure of the refrigerator.

5-

First premise: The purses they sell at Ana's store are expensive.

Second premise: Luisa only buys expensive handbags.

Conclusion: Luisa will buy or will have bought at Ana's store.

6-

First premise: The neighbors make a lot of noise.

Second premise: Emiliano is my neighbor.

Conclusion: Emiliano makes a lot of noise.

7-

First premise: That car is only bought by wealthy people.

Second premise: Carlos is wealthy.

Conclusion: Carlos can buy that car.

It is important to note that the premises of abductive arguments can be wrong, so they cannot be considered as universal truths. A critical appraisal of the argument is also recommended before stating conclusions.

Critical evaluation of the argument

The famous detective Sherlock Holmes used abductive reasoning to solve cases. Source: Juhanson

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of an abductive argument, it is necessary to answer a series of critical questions, which serve to corroborate the assertiveness of the premises and strengthen the conclusion. These questions are as follows:

1. Are the premises acceptable? That is, in objective terms, is it possible that N has happened? Likewise, do we have all the events that make up G? How likely is explanation G? Is G really the best explanation? How much better is G compared to the rest of the hypotheses?
2. Is the conclusion well founded? Specifically, has the investigation been thorough? Have you provided significant information? On the other hand, would it be preferable to continue with the investigation before stating that G is the best answer for N?

On many occasions, after applying this evaluation, the argumentative has had to reconsider the initial premises. However, the application of this evaluation is only necessary when it is desired to develop a more decisive explanation of the phenomena.

If an abductive argument is used in everyday life and ordinary events, it is unlikely that these questions will be required, because the main objective of arguments of this type is to reach a quick conclusion.

Themes of interest

Probabilistic argument.

Inductive argument.

Deductive argument.

Analog argument.

Conductive argument.

Argument from authority.

References

1. Demetriou, A. (2003) Argumentation with abduction. Retrieved on January 7, 2020 from pdfs.semanticscholar.org
2. Moscoso, J. (2019) Abductive reasoning. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from Scielo.
3. Pinto, S. (2007) Two aspects of abductive reasoning. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from Dialnet: Dialnet.unirioja.es
4. SA (2017) Abductive arguments, essential in the investigation. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from medium.com
5. SA (nd) 10 examples of abductive argument. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from examples.co
6. SA (sf) Abductive reasoning. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from Wikipedia: es.wikipedia.org
7. Soler, F. (2012) Abductive reasoning in classical logic. Retrieved on January 7, 2019 from personal.us.es
8. Wagemans, J. (2013) The assessment of argumentation based or abduction. Retrieved on January 7, 2020 from scholar.uwindsor.ca