Penaakulan penculikan

Pemain *mastermind* menggunakan penculikan untuk membuat kesimpulan warna rahsia *(atas)* daripada ringkasan *(kiri bawah)* percanggahan tekaan mereka *(kanan bawah)*.

Penaakulan penculikan (juga dipanggil penculikan,^[1] inferens penculikan,^[1] atau retroduksi^[2]) ialah satu bentuk inferens logik yang dirumuskan dan dimajukan oleh ahli falsafah Amerika Charles Sanders Peirce bermula pada pertiga terakhir abad ke-19. Ia bermula dengan pemerhatian atau set pemerhatian dan kemudian mencari kesimpulan yang paling mudah dan berkemungkinan besar daripada pemerhatian. Proses ini, tidak seperti penaakulan deduktif, menghasilkan kesimpulan yang munasabah tetapi tidak mengesahkannya secara positif. Kesimpulan yang menculik adalah layak sebagai mempunyai sisa ketidakpastian atau keraguan, yang dinyatakan dalam istilah berundur seperti "terdapat terbaik" atau "kemungkinan besar". Seseorang boleh memahami penaakulan abduktif sebagai inferens kepada penjelasan terbaik,^[3] walaupun tidak semua penggunaan istilah penculikan dan inferens kepada penjelasan terbaik adalah setara.^[4]^[5]

Pada 1990-an, apabila kuasa pengkomputeran berkembang, bidang undang-undang,^[6] sains komputer, dan penyelidikan kecerdasan buatan ^[7] mendorong minat baharu dalam subjek penculikan.^[8] Sistem pakar diagnostik kerap menggunakan penculikan. ^[9]

Rujukan

^ ^a ^b For example: Josephson, John R.; Josephson, Susan G., penyunting (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511530128. ISBN 978-0521434614. OCLC 28149683.
^ "Retroduction". Commens – Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce. Mats Bergman, Sami Paavola & João Queiroz. Diarkibkan daripada yang asal pada 2014-08-26. Dicapai pada 2014-08-24.
^ Sober, Elliott (2013). Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings (ed. 6th). Boston: Pearson Education. m/s. 28. ISBN 9780205206698. OCLC 799024771. I now move to abduction—inference to the best explanation.
^ Campos, Daniel G. (June 2011). "On the distinction between Peirce's abduction and Lipton's inference to the best explanation". Synthese. 180 (3): 419–442. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3. 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. [...] 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.
^ Walton, Douglas (2001). "Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments". Informal Logic. 21 (2): 141–169. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.127.1593. doi:10.22329/il.v21i2.2241. Abductive inference has often been equated with inference to the best explanation. [...] The account of abductive inference and inference to the best explanation presented above has emphasized the common elements found in the analyses given by Peirce, Harman and the Josephsons. It is necessary to add that this brief account may be misleading in some respects, and that a closer and more detailed explication of the finer points of the three analyses could reveal important underlying philosophical differences. Inferences to the best explanation, as expounded by Harman and the Josephsons, can involve deductive and inductive processes of a kind that would be apparently be excluded by Peirce's account of abduction.
^ See, e.g. Analysis of Evidence, 2d ed. by Terence Anderson (Cambridge University Press, 2005)
^ For examples, see "Abductive Inference in Reasoning and Perception", John R. Josephson, Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research, Ohio State University, and Abduction, Reason, and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation by Lorenzo Magnani (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001).
^ Flach, P. A.; Kakas, A. C., penyunting (2000). Abduction and Induction: Essays on their Relation and Integration. Springer. m/s. xiii. This book grew out of a series of workshops on this topic. [Budapest 1996; Nagoya 1997; Brighton 1998] |access-date= requires |url= (bantuan)
^ Reggia, James A., et al. "Answer justification in diagnostic expert systems-Part I: Abductive inference and its justification." IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering 4 (1985): 263-267.

Pautan luar

Templat:Cite SEP
Templat:InPho
Templat:PhilPapers
"Abductive Inference" (once there, scroll down), John R. Josephson, Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research, Ohio State University. (Former webpage via the Wayback Machine.)
"Deduction, Induction, and Abduction", Chapter 3 in article "Charles Sanders Peirce" by Robert Burch, 2001 and 2006, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"Abduction", links to articles and websites on abductive inference, Martin Ryder.
International Research Group on Abductive Inference, Uwe Wirth and Alexander Roesler, eds. Uses frames. Click on link at bottom of its home page for English. Wirth moved to U. of Gießen, Germany, and set up Abduktionsforschung, home page not in English but see Artikel section there. Abduktionsforschung home page via Google translation.
"'You Know My Method': A Juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes" (1981), by Thomas Sebeok with Jean Umiker-Sebeok, from The Play of Musement, Thomas Sebeok, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 17–52.
Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, Mats Bergman and Sami Paavola, editors, Helsinki U. Peirce's own definitions, often many per term across the decades. There, see "Hypothesis [as a form of reasoning]", "Abduction", "Retroduction", and "Presumption [as a form of reasoning]".

[Josephson-1] For example: Josephson, John R.; Josephson, Susan G., penyunting (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511530128. ISBN 978-0521434614. OCLC 28149683.

[2] "Retroduction". Commens – Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce. Mats Bergman, Sami Paavola & João Queiroz. Diarkibkan daripada yang asal pada 2014-08-26. Dicapai pada 2014-08-24.

[3] Sober, Elliott (2013). Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings (ed. 6th). Boston: Pearson Education. m/s. 28. ISBN 9780205206698. OCLC 799024771. I now move to abduction—inference to the best explanation.

[4] Campos, Daniel G. (June 2011). "On the distinction between Peirce's abduction and Lipton's inference to the best explanation". Synthese. 180 (3): 419–442. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3. 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. [...] 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.

[5] Walton, Douglas (2001). "Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments". Informal Logic. 21 (2): 141–169. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.127.1593. doi:10.22329/il.v21i2.2241. Abductive inference has often been equated with inference to the best explanation. [...] The account of abductive inference and inference to the best explanation presented above has emphasized the common elements found in the analyses given by Peirce, Harman and the Josephsons. It is necessary to add that this brief account may be misleading in some respects, and that a closer and more detailed explication of the finer points of the three analyses could reveal important underlying philosophical differences. Inferences to the best explanation, as expounded by Harman and the Josephsons, can involve deductive and inductive processes of a kind that would be apparently be excluded by Peirce's account of abduction.

[6] See, e.g. Analysis of Evidence, 2d ed. by Terence Anderson (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

[Josephson,Magnani-7] For examples, see "Abductive Inference in Reasoning and Perception", John R. Josephson, Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research, Ohio State University, and Abduction, Reason, and Science. Processes of Discovery and Explanation by Lorenzo Magnani (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001).

[8] Flach, P. A.; Kakas, A. C., penyunting (2000). Abduction and Induction: Essays on their Relation and Integration. Springer. m/s. xiii. This book grew out of a series of workshops on this topic. [Budapest 1996; Nagoya 1997; Brighton 1998] |access-date= requires |url= (bantuan)

[9] Reggia, James A., et al. "Answer justification in diagnostic expert systems-Part I: Abductive inference and its justification." IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering 4 (1985): 263-267.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]