Advertisement

Serendipity and Abduction in Proofs, Presumptions and Emerging Laws

  • Pek van Andel
  • Danièle Bourcier
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 94)

Abstract

Serendipity, in science, is the ability to discover, invent, create, or imagine a finding — a hypothesis, an explanation, a rule, a theory, a law — without deliberately having looked for it. This aptitude involves an ability to give a justifiable interpretation of unexpected, incomprehensible, or unqualifiable facts with a given reference system. There are numerous examples of serendipity, not only in science, but also in technology and art) Such fortuitous findings are generally thought to be the result of a “chance observation” or the result of emerging norms that may evolve in a more or less chaotic way through an underlying principle that can be discovered through a meticulous interpretation of the data.

Keywords

Supra Note Code Civil Major Premise Abductive Reasoning Legal Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. I See Pek van Andel, Anatomy of the Unsought Finding. Serendipity: Origin, History, Domains, Traditions, Appearances, Patterns and Programmability, 45 BRIT. J. PHIL. SCI 631 (1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charles s. Peirce, collected papers 65, 89 (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss eds., Harvard Univ. Press, 1965); 2 PEIRCE, supra, at 623, 755, 776; 5 PEIRCE, supra, at 59, 60, 146, 171, 172, 174, 189, 194, 604; 6 PEIRCE, supra, at 469, 525; 7 PEIRCE, supra, at 121, 122, 219, 220. For a good summary of Peirce’s theory, see Kuang Tih Fann, Peirce’S Theory Of Abduction (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See R. K. MERTON, SOCIAL THEORY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 103–08 (1957).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pek van Andel and Danièle BourcierGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    See Pek van Andel & Danièle Bourcier, Peut-on Programmer la Sérendipité? L’ordinateur et l’interprétation de l’inattendu, in INTERPRÉTER LE DROIT: LE SENS, L’INTERPRÈTE, LA MACHINE 487–502 (C. Thomasset & Danièle Bourcier éds., 1997); Danièle Bourcier, Interprétation et Abduction, La Science du Droit est-elle Concernée par la Sérendipité?, 42 REVUE INTERDISCIPLINAIRE D’ ETUDES JURIDIQUES 125 (1999).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    PLATO, Meno, in 2 PLATO 300–01 (W.R.M. Lamb trans., Harvard Univ. Press 1990) (385 B.C.). This is an argument made by Sophists, as mentioned by Socrates, who disagreed with them in Plato’s Meno.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    AMIR KHUSRAU, HASHT BIHISHT 781–1067 (Ja’far Iftikhar ed., Moscow 1972) (1302).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Letter from Horace Walpole, to Horace Mann (Jan. 28, 1754) (quoted in SERENDIPITY AND THE THREE PRINCES: FROM THE PEREGRINAGGIO OF 1557, at 19, 22 (Theodore G. Remer ed., 1965)).Google Scholar
  9. Serendipity and Abduction in Proofs, Presumptions and Emerging Laws 275Google Scholar
  10. B MERTON, supra note 3 at 104–06.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    See Pek van Andel, Hypothesis Testing and Anomaly Explaining, 21 J. PSYCHOSOM. OBSTET. GYNECOL. 67, 68 (2000).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    See ARISTOTLE, ARISTOTLE’S PRIOR AND POSTERIOR ANALYTICS (W. D. Ross ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1949 ).Google Scholar
  13. See CLAUDE BERNARD, INTRODUCTION À L’ÉTUDE DE LA MÉDECINE EXPÉRIMENTALE 166Google Scholar
  14. H.C. Green trans., Dover Publications 1943) (1865).Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    See PEIRCE, supra note 2.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    See MERTON, supra note 3.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    See THOMAS KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (2d ed., 1970).Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    See NORWOOD RUSSELL HANSON, PATTERNS OF DISCOVERY (1958).Google Scholar
  19. 276.
    Pek van Andel and Danièle BourcierGoogle Scholar
  20. 16.
    See ARISTOTLE, supra note 10.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    See PEIRCE, supra note 2.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 146. ‘81d. at 171Google Scholar
  23. 20.
    Id. at 194.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    See 2 PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 623–25.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    See Jean-Blaise Grize, Mais au Fond, Qu’est-ce que Raisonner?, 58 ARCHIVES DE PSYCHOLOGIE 118 (1990).Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 117.Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    See P. BOURGINE, Connaissances Abductives et Compilation de Connaissances, in ACTES DU LE CONGRÈS EUROPÉEN DE SYSTÉMIQUE 995 (1989).Google Scholar
  28. 278.
    Pek van Andel and Danièle BourcierGoogle Scholar
  29. 25.
    See Règis Messac, Le “Detective Novel” et l’Influence de la Pensée Scientifique (1929) (unpublished dissertation, University of Paris) (on file in the Universiteits Bibliotheek of the State University Groningen, The Netherlands) (especially chapter 1, “Voyages et Aventures des `Princes de Sarendip,” and chapter 2, “Sur le chemin d’Athenes: On `Serendipity’, `Farisa’ and `the Method of Zadig”’).Google Scholar
  30. 26.
    See Umberto Eco, Guessing: From Aristotle to Sherlock Holmes, 30 VERSUS 14 (1981).Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    See M. Maisch & J.F. Nijboer, Complex Cases, Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System (Thela Thesis, Criminal Science Series 1999) (especially chapter 8, “What Went Wrong in the Ballpoint Case?” and chapter 9, “The Ballpoint Case: A Wigmorean Analysis”).Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    See C. Rompen, M.F. Meek, P. van Andel, A Cause Célèbre: The So-Called “Ballpoint Murder,” 45 J. FORENSIC Sct. 1144–47 (2000).Google Scholar
  33. Serendipity and Abduction in Proofs, Presumptions and Emerging Laws 279Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    BRIAN H. KAYE, SCIENCE AND THE DETECTIVE: SELECTED READINGS IN FORENSIC SCIENCE (1995).Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    See Rompen et al., supra note 28.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    See DANIELE BOURCIER & M. DE BONIS, LES PARADOXES DE L’EXPERTISE, LES EMPÊCHEURS DE PENSER EN ROND-SYNTHÉLABO 50 (1999).Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    See CH. PERELMAN, LOGIQUE JURIDIQUE: NOUVELLE RHÉTORIQUE 59–61 (1976).Google Scholar
  38. 282.
    Pek van Andel and Danièle BourcierGoogle Scholar
  39. 33.
    See CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] art. 1353 (Fr.).Google Scholar
  40. 34.
    See SHEILA JASANOFF, SCIENCE AT THE BAR: LAW, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN AMERICA (1997).Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    See CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] art. 1352 (Fr.).Google Scholar
  42. 36.
    See C. civ. § 316.Google Scholar
  43. 37.
    JASANOFF, supra note 34.Google Scholar
  44. 38.
    See Grize, supra note 22, at 118.Google Scholar
  45. 39.
    CHARLES LOUIS MONTESQUIEU, DE L’ESPRIT DES Lois 1035 (Robert Derathé ed., Garnier Prères 1973) (1748).Google Scholar
  46. 284.
    Pek van Andel and Danièle BourcierGoogle Scholar
  47. 443.
    See E.T. ten Heuvelhof & J.A. de Bruijn, Governing: Structure and Process-Contingent Interventions, in PUBLIC POLICY & ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES IN THE NETHERLANDS 173 (W.J.M. Kickert & F.A. van Vught eds., 1995 ).Google Scholar
  48. 41.
    See JOHN GRIFFITHS ET AL., EUTHANASIA & LAW IN THE NETHERLANDS (1998).Google Scholar
  49. 42.
  50. 44.
    BOURGINE, supra note 24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pek van Andel
  • Danièle Bourcier

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations