ON ABDUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.

AutorDuarte, Antonio
CargoEnsayo
  1. Introduction

    In this paper, I focus on deviations in a speaker's intent from that expressed by the standard or ordinary use of language, in instances where abductive reasoning plays a necessary role (Wirth 2001; Arrighi and Ferrairo 2008). This is closely connected to Davidson's work on intentional deviations from ordinary language usage, as in the case of jokes, puns and metaphors, where there is a "secret" message that has to be discovered (Davidson 2006). In such cases, the speaker usually utters some "mysterious" words based on the assumed abductive capability of their interlocutor. To arrive at a correct interpretation, the listener has to pay attention to pragmatic considerations, i.e., the context of the participants and the dialogue are essential. Thus, in order to cause the desired effect, the speaker relies on the listener's knowledge of the relevant common dialogue framework and thus uses the utterance as an abductive trigger (Aliseda 2006). In order to address a thorough examination of the interlocutor's context, the dialectical perspective of argumentation theory will be invoked.

    According to pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984), there are certain rules that we have to observe when we are enrolled in a critical discussion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1987). In many instances of deviations in a speaker's intent, the "mysterious" words may be understood as violations of the discussion rules that frustrate the reasonable resolution of the difference of opinion and, therefore, these deviations could be regarded as fallacies. Thus, detecting a fallacy in the course of a dialogue may act as an abductive trigger and can help us to discover certain intentions of our interlocutor, at least as far as the interpretation of the utterance is concerned. This is the case in ironic (pseudo)fallacy, which is an ironic utterance analyzed on the basis of extended pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren 2010). The analysis shows that these kinds of utterances could be understood as legitimate strategic maneuvering which consists in shifting or evading the burden of proof based on the speaker's assessment of the abductive capability of the interlocutor. To resolve the situation, an abduction has to be made based on contextual elements, i.e., from the interlocutor's knowledge at that point in the exchange. Therefore, ironic (pseudo)fallacy will be a fallacy only if the abductive process is not triggered in the hearer or if the listener's abduction fails.

    In addition, following this dialectical approach, the rapid, almost instantaneous, new hypothesis arrived at by abduction could be properly analyzed and criticized in a reasoned way.

    The paper is structured into different sections. Section 2 is devoted to presenting the Peircean terms of abduction, insight, and logica docens. In Section 3, I focus on the dialogic approach to abduction, in order to find a methodology for this type of reasoning; while in Section 4, I connect abduction and Davidson's approach to interpretation. Then in Section 5, ironic (pseudo)fallacy is presented as a case where dialogue, traditional and pragma-dialectical fallacies, abduction, and interpretation interact in the course of resolving conversational implicature (Grice 1975). Finally, Section 6 offers some general conclusions.

  2. Peircean Abduction

    Abduction is a type of reasoning in which a new idea is introduced and, moreover, where that idea is both tentative and relative to a given context. In Fann's words: "any synthetic proposition, whether it is a nonobservable entity or a generalization (so-called), in so far as it is for the first time entertained as possibly true, it is an hypothesis arrived at by abduction" (Fann 1970, pp. 33-34). Thus, through abduction, when we are faced with what can be regarded as surprising facts, we generate plausible hypotheses that can be tested by following the three stages of scientific research, as laid out by C.S. Peirce in his later work and which emerge from the three types of inference: abduction, deduction, induction. Accordingly, abduction could be considered as the whole process of both hypothesis generation and hypothesis evaluation following the three stages of scientific investigation (Peirce, (1) CP 7.202-7.207, 1901, see e.g. Fann 1970; Anderson 1986). However, abduction is also understood as the inference that only generates plausible hypotheses: "Abduced hypotheses are adopted as a positive basis for action in various ways and for various reasons (only subclasses of abductive hypotheses are adopted only after a Peircean process of inductive empirical evaluation)." (Magnani 2009, p. 19)

    While I note the distinction between abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE) (see e.g. Magnani 2001; Aliseda 2006; Douven 2011; Wagemans 2014; Yu and Zenker 2017), here I will consider the abductive process as both hypothesis generation and hypothesis evaluation. When studying the differences between abduction and IBE, Yu and Zenker (2017) correctly point out that "the goal of IBE is to single out the 'best' explanation; the goal of abduction, by contrast, is to generate plausible explanations for further testing". Nevertheless, although a clear distinction between abduction and IBE is obviously possible, this may not be the case for the definitions of "generative" and "selective" abduction. Plausible hypotheses (understood as plausible explanatory abductions, see e.g. Gabbay and Woods 2005; Magnani 2009, pp. 63-144) arrived at by abduction (not IBE) have also been selected in some way, because these conjectures have to explain, at least vaguely, the data. Therefore, in agreement with Magnani (2001), I assume that "generative" abduction (hypothesis-conjecture) and "selective" abduction (hypothesis-evaluation) occur as one inseparable process. I consider that this is the case in the interpretation process: the rapid abduction which leads to success in the communication process is usually a plausible and tentative explanation selected by a sort of preliminary IBE (see Section 5).

    Peirce tells us: "The abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although of extremely fallible insight" (Peirce, CP 5.181, 1903). So, although the abductive process turns out to be somewhat instinctive, abduction involves an exercise in logica docens, i.e., a voluntary inquiry into the context that can lead us to the resolution of the enigma. As Anderson states: "For Peirce, abduction presupposes a certain amount of work by the investigator" (1986, p. 161). Therefore, by means of this insight, we illuminate a new idea that, perhaps, in a few seconds, will be a hypothesis. However, this "flash" comes about through rational and critical activity.

    Peirce drew a distinction between the logic of men and women in their day-to-day lives and criticism, an incisive and more scientific logic; Peirce called them logica utens and logica docens, respectively (Peirce CP 2.188-2.190, 1902; CP 5.108, 1903; CP 5.130, 1903; Pietarinen 2005, p. 368; Chiasson 2001; Nino 2007, p. 142). Deliberate and critical reasoning is driven by logica docens, as opposed to the daily reasoning guided by our habits in which logica utens is the intermediary. In this sense, this concept of logica docens is broader than that adopted by the scholastic philosophers, for whom logica docens was the knowledge acquired through the study of logic. In short, in this paper I will refer to logica docens when the problem to be resolved is approached with a critical eye (Duarte 2018). In Fann's words: "by our logica utens we are able to guess right in many instances. [...] But, where our instinctive reasoning power begins to lose its self-confidence, as when we are confronted with extraordinary and unusual problems, we look to the help of our logica docens" (1970, p. 39).

  3. Methodology: A Dialogic Approach to Abduction

    Although there are no strict rules for abduction, we can discern a method for engaging in this type of voluntarily hypothesizing that leads to the generation of what we can consider to be "good" abductions. These "good" abductions are not identified with correct, true or infallible abductions, but with those that stand up to rational criticism; those in which we can argue for our choice because the latter explains, in some way, the data collected up to that point.

    The essays collected in Eco and Sebeok (1988) address the methodology adopted by famous fictional detectives that guides them towards good abductions. Hintikka (1998) distinguished between definitory rules, those that govern what is permissible when making inferences (the existent rules of transformation for deduction and induction); and strategic rules, those of abduction, which depend on context and are based on asking the right questions. Abduction is, therefore, usually presented in open circumstances, i.e., in situations where our knowledge is incomplete, and the process is not only one of reasoning, but also one of dialogue. As Hintikka points out, there is a close affinity between Peircean abduction and the interrogative model of inquiry, especially through explanation-seeking "why" questions: "Abductive 'inferences' must be constructed as answers to the inquirer's explicit or...

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR