Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 37–52 | Cite as

Simulation Methods for an Abductive System in Science

  • T. R. Addis
  • D. C. Gooding
Article

Abstract

We argue that abduction does not work in isolation from other inference mechanisms and illustrate this through an inference scheme designed to evaluate multiple hypotheses. We use game theory to relate the abductive system to actions that produce new information. To enable evaluation of the implications of this approach we have implemented the procedures used to calculate the impact of new information in a computer model. Experiments with this model display a number of features of collective belief-revision leading to consensus-formation, such as the influence of bias and prejudice. The scheme of inferential calculations invokes a Peircian concept of ‘belief’ as the propensity to choose a particular course of action.

Keywords

Belief Indifference Flexibility Receptivity Certainty Bayes Action Confidence Bias Prejudice Choice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addis, T. R. (1985). Designing knowledge-based systems. London: Kogan Page, London/New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Addis T.R. (2000). Stone soup: Identifying intelligence through construction. Kybernetes, 29: 849–870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Addis T. and Billinge D. (2004). Music to our ears: A required paradigm shift in Computer Science presented at ECAP04. University of Pavia, Italy Google Scholar
  4. Addis, T. R., & Gooding, D. C. (1999). Learning as collective belief-revision: Simulating reasoning about disparate phenomena. In Proceedings: AISB’99 Symposium on Scientific Creativity, University of Edinburg, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
  5. Gooding D.C. (1990). Experiment and the making of meaning. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht and Boston Google Scholar
  6. Gooding, D. C. (1996). Creative rationality: Towards an abductive model of scientific change. In J. Meheus (Ed.), Philosophica: Creativity, rationality and scientific change (Vol. 58, pp. 73–101).Google Scholar
  7. Gooding, D., & Addis, T. R. (1999). A simulation of model-based reasoning about disparate phenomena. In L. Magnani et al. (Eds.), pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
  8. Gooding, D., & Addis, T. R. (2008). Modeling scientific experiments as mediating models. Foundations of Science, doi:  10.1007/s10699-007-9114-7, this issue.
  9. Hanson N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  10. Johnson-Laird P.N., Wason P.C. (1977). A theoretical analysis of insight into a reasoning task. In: Johnson-Laird P.N., P.C. Wason 1977, (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp.143–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Knorr-Cetina K. (1975). The manufacture of knowledge. Pergamon Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  12. Krauß, S., Martignon, L., & Hoffrage, U. (1998). Simplifying Bayesian inference: The general case. In L. Magnani et al. (Eds.), pp. 165–179.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago University Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn T.S. (1974). Second thoughts on paradigms. In: Kuhn, T.S. (eds) The essential tension., pp 293–319. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn T.S. (1977a). Objectivity, value judgement and theory choice. In: Kuhn, T.S. (eds) The essential tension., pp 320–339. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn T.S. (Ed.) (1977b). The essential tension. Chicago University Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  17. Lakatos I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge., pp 91–196. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  18. Luce R.D. and Raiffa H. (1957). Games and decisions. John Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  19. Magnani L. (1998). Model-based creative abduction. In: Magnani L. et al. (eds). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. (pp. 219–237) Dordrecht: Kluwer, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  20. Magnani L. (2001). Abduction, reason and science. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  21. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N., & Thagard, P. (Eds.), (1998). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Dordrecht: Kluwer, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews R. (2004). Opposites detract. New Scientist, 181(2438): 39–43 Google Scholar
  23. Peirce C. (1966). The fixation of belief. In: Weiner, P.P. (eds) Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings, pp 92–260. Dover, New York Google Scholar
  24. Popper K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Google Scholar
  25. Salmon W. (1990). Rationality and objectivity in Science, or, Tom Kuhn meets Tom Bayes. In: Savage, C.W. (eds) Scientific theories, pp 175–204. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Google Scholar
  26. Shannon C.E. and Weaver W. (1964). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (first published 1949)Google Scholar
  27. Siegel D.M. (1981). Thomson, Maxwell and the universal ether in Victorian Physics. In: Cantor G.N., Hodge M.J. Conceptions of ether (pp. 239–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Swenson L.S. (1972). The etherial ether: A history of the Michelson, Morley, Miller experiments. University of Texas Press, Austin Google Scholar
  29. Tweney, R. D. (1985). Faraday’s discovery of induction: A cognitive approach. In D. Gooding & F. James (Eds.), Faraday Rediscovered (pp. 189–209). London: Macmillan, New York: APA Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wason P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12: 129–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wason P.C. and Shapiro D.A. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23: 63–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein L. (1921). Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (English Edition 1961). Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Science Studies CentreUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations