Résumés
Abstract
The paper presents an extended scheme for the inference to the best explanation (IBE). The scheme precisely treats the epistemic modifiers (“hypothetically,” “plausibly,” “presumably”) of the inference, acknowledges its contrastive nature, clarifies the logical support between premises and conclusions (linked, convergent, and serial support), and introduces additional premises essential for inferring justified conclusions (especially those related to causal explanations and more demanding standards of proof). Overall, it advances the existing schemes for IBE in argumentation theory and treats IBE as a par excellence argumentative, rather than explanatory, form of reasoning.
Keywords:
- abduction,
- argument scheme,
- causation,
- inference to the best explanation,
- justification,
- medicine,
- pragmatism,
- presumption
Résumé
L’article présente en détail un schéma pour l’inférence vers la meilleure explication (IME). Le schéma traite précisément les modificateurs épistémiques (« hypothétiquement », « plausiblement », « vraisemblablement ») de l’inférence, reconnaît sa nature qui fait contraste, clarifie l’appui logique entre les prémisses et les conclusions (l’appui lié, convergent et sériel) et introduit des prémisses supplémentaires essentielles pour inférer des conclusions justifiées (en particulier celles liées aux explications causales et aux normes de preuve plus exigeantes). Dans l’ensemble, l’article fait progresser les schémas existants pour l’IME dans la théorie de l’argumentation et traite l’IME comme une forme de raisonnement argumentatif par excellence, plutôt qu’explicatif.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Bodlović, P. 2021. On the differences between practical and cognitive presumptions. Argumentation 35(2): 287-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09536-w
- Bodlović, P. 2022. On the strength of presumptions. Pragmatics & Cognition 29(1): 82-110. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21017.bod
- Bodlović, P. and K. Kudlek. 2024. Knowledge versus understanding: what drives moral progress? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-024-10465-w
- Campos, D. G. 2011. On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation. Synthese 180: 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3
- Cawsey, A. 1992. Explanation and interaction. The computer generation of explanatory dialogues. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- Douven, I. 2021. Abduction. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2021 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. URL accessed 15 September 2022: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/abduction/ .
- Dragulinescu, S. 2016. Inference to the best explanation and mechanisms in medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37: 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-016-9365-9
- Dretske, F. I. 1972. Contrastive statements. The Philosophical Review 81(4): 411-437.
- Dufour, M. 2017. Argument or explanation: Who is to decide? Informal Logic 37(1): 23-41. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i1.4523
- van Eemeren, F.H. and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Elgin, C. 2007. Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies 132(1): 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9054-z
- van Fraassen, B.C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- van Fraassen, B.C. 1989. Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Freeman, J.B. 2005. Acceptable premises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gaszczyk, G. 2023. Helping others to understand: A normative account of the speech act of explanation. Topoi 42: 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-022-09878-y
- Godden, D. 2017. Presumption as a modal qualifier: Presumption, inference, and managing epistemic risk. Argumentation 31(3): 485-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9422-1
- Godden, D. and D. Walton. 2007. A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2): 313-346.
- Govier, T. 2010. A practical study of argument (7th edition). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
- Grimm, S. 2010. The goal of explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 337-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.10.006
- Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Harman, G. H. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review 74(1): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183532
- Hempel, C. 1966. The philosophy of natural science, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
- Hills, A. 2016. Understanding why. Noûs 49(2): 661-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12092
- Hintikka, J. 1998. What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34(3): 503-533.
- Holzinger, A., Langs, G., Denk, H., Zatloukal, K. and H. Müller. 2019. Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov, 9, 4, e1312. doi: 10.1002/widm.1312. Epub 2019 Apr 2. PMID: 32089788; PMCID: PMC7017860.
- Josephson, J. R. and S. G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive Inference: computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Lewiński, M. 2017. Argumentation theory without presumptions. Argumentation 31(3): 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9421-2
- Lewiński, M. and P. Abreu. 2022. Arguing about “COVID”: Metalinguistic arguments on what counts as a “COVID-19 Death.” In The pan-demic of argumentation, eds. S. Oswald, M. Lewiński, S. Greco, S. Villata, 17-43. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_2
- Lewis, D. 1986. Causal explanation. In his Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation (2nd edition). Routledge.
- Macagno, F. 2021. Argumentation schemes in AI: A literature review. Introduction to the special issue. Argument and Computation 12(3): 287-302.
- Macagno, F. and D. Walton. 2012. Presumptions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 25(3): 271-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00514.x
- Magnani, L. 2001. Abduction, reason and science. Processes of discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Marcum, J. A. 2008. Humanizing Modern Medicine. An Introductory Philosophy of Medicine. Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
- Mcauliffe, W. H. B. 2015. How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 51(3): 300-319.
- McKeon, M. W. 2013. On the rationale for distinguishing arguments from explanations. Argumentation 27: 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9288-1
- Miller, T. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence 267: 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
- Minnameier, G. 2004. Peirce-suit of truth: Why inference to the best explanation and abduction ought not to be Confused. Erkenntnis 60 (1): 75-105. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ERKE.0000005162.52052.7f
- Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C. and S. Wachter. 2019. Explaining explanations in AI. arXiv:1811.01439 [cs.AI]: 1-10.
- Moore, D. J. 1995. Participating in explanatory dialogues. Interpreting and responding to questions in context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
- Nyrup, R. and D. Robinson. 2022. Explanatory pragmatism: a context‑sensitive framework for explainable medical AI. Ethics and Information Technology 24: 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09632-3.
- O’Keefe, D. J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3): 121-128.
- Olmos, P. 2021. Metaphilosophy and argument: The case of the justification of abduction. Informal Logic 41(2): 131–164. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v41i2.6249
- Pearl, J. 2009. Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Press
- Peirce, C. S. 1903. Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. In The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (electronic edition), Vol. 5, eds. P. Weiss, C. Hartshorne, and A.W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Peirce, C. S. 1994. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (electronic edition), Vol. 1–8), eds. P. Weiss, C. Hartshorne, and A.W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Prakken, H. and G. Sartor. 2009. A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic, eds. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, B. Verheij, 223-253. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing (Applied Legal Philosophy Series).
- de Regt, H. 2015. Scientific understanding: truth or dare? Synthese 192(12): 3781–3797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0538-7
- Rescher, N. 1976. Plausible reasoning. Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
- Rescher, N. 2006. Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rohlfing K. J. et al. 2021. Explanation as a social practice: toward a conceptual framework for the social design of ai systems. IEEE Transac-tions on cognitive and developmental systems 13(3): 717-728. doi: 10.1109/TCDS.2020.3044366
- Salmon, W. 1971. Statistical explanation. In Statistical explanation and statistical relevance, ed. W. Salmon, 29-87. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1983. On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 80(3): 143-163.
- Urbański, M. and A. Klawiter. 2018. Abduction: Some conceptual issues. Logic and Logical Philosophy 27(4): 583-597.
- Wagemans, J.H.M. 2016a. Criteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation. In Argumentation and reasoned action: proceedings of the 1st European conference on argumentation (Lisbon, 2015), Vol. II, eds. D. Mohammed, M. Lewiński, 43-53. London: College Publications.
- Wagemans, J.H.M. 2016b. Argumentative patterns for justifying scientific explanations. Argumentation 30: 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2
- Walton, D. 2001. Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. In-formal Logic 21(2): 141-169. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2241
- Walton, D. 2005. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
- Walton, D. 2006. Character evidence. An abductive theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Walton, D. 2011. A dialogue system specification for explanation. Synthese 182: 349-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9745-z
- Walton, D., C. Reed and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Wenzel, J. W. 1992. Perspectives on argument. In Readings in Argumentation, eds. W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit, 121–143. Berlin / New York: Foris.
- Wilholt, T. 2009. Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40(1): 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.005
- Witek, M. 2021. Illocution and accommodation in the functioning of presumptions. Synthese 198(7): 6207–6244.
- Woods, J., A. Irvine and D. Walton. 2003. Argument: critical thinking, logic, and the fallacies (2nd Edition). Toronto: PEARSON, Prentice Hall.
- Yu, S. and F. Zenker. 2018. Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE—A scheme and critical questions for abductive Argument. Argumentation 32: 569-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9443-9
- Yu, S. and F. Zenker. 2022. Identifying linked and convergent argument structures: A problem unsolved. Informal Logic 42 (2): 363-387. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v42i1.7133