Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Serendipity and Abduction in Proofs, Presumptions and Emerging Laws

  • Chapter
The Dynamics of Judicial Proof

Part of the book series: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing ((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.

If one does not expect the unexpected one will not find it out, since it [truth] is not to be searched out, and difficult to compass.

Heraclitus

Ah! The art of deboging of the Princes of Serendip!

Grize, 1999

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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. 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. See R. K. MERTON, SOCIAL THEORY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 103–08 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pek van Andel and Danièle Bourcier

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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. 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. AMIR KHUSRAU, HASHT BIHISHT 781–1067 (Ja’far Iftikhar ed., Moscow 1972) (1302).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 275

    Google Scholar 

  10. B MERTON, supra note 3 at 104–06.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Pek van Andel, Hypothesis Testing and Anomaly Explaining, 21 J. PSYCHOSOM. OBSTET. GYNECOL. 67, 68 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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 166

    Google Scholar 

  14. H.C. Green trans., Dover Publications 1943) (1865).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See PEIRCE, supra note 2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See MERTON, supra note 3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See THOMAS KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (2d ed., 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  18. See NORWOOD RUSSELL HANSON, PATTERNS OF DISCOVERY (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pek van Andel and Danièle Bourcier

    Google Scholar 

  20. See ARISTOTLE, supra note 10.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See PEIRCE, supra note 2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 146. ‘81d. at 171

    Google Scholar 

  23. Id. at 194.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See 2 PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 623–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Jean-Blaise Grize, Mais au Fond, Qu’est-ce que Raisonner?, 58 ARCHIVES DE PSYCHOLOGIE 118 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  26. PEIRCE, supra note 2, at 117.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See P. BOURGINE, Connaissances Abductives et Compilation de Connaissances, in ACTES DU LE CONGRÈS EUROPÉEN DE SYSTÉMIQUE 995 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pek van Andel and Danièle Bourcier

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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. See Umberto Eco, Guessing: From Aristotle to Sherlock Holmes, 30 VERSUS 14 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. 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 279

    Google Scholar 

  34. BRIAN H. KAYE, SCIENCE AND THE DETECTIVE: SELECTED READINGS IN FORENSIC SCIENCE (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Rompen et al., supra note 28.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See DANIELE BOURCIER & M. DE BONIS, LES PARADOXES DE L’EXPERTISE, LES EMPÊCHEURS DE PENSER EN ROND-SYNTHÉLABO 50 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  37. See CH. PERELMAN, LOGIQUE JURIDIQUE: NOUVELLE RHÉTORIQUE 59–61 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pek van Andel and Danièle Bourcier

    Google Scholar 

  39. See CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] art. 1353 (Fr.).

    Google Scholar 

  40. See SHEILA JASANOFF, SCIENCE AT THE BAR: LAW, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN AMERICA (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  41. See CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] art. 1352 (Fr.).

    Google Scholar 

  42. See C. civ. § 316.

    Google Scholar 

  43. JASANOFF, supra note 34.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Grize, supra note 22, at 118.

    Google Scholar 

  45. CHARLES LOUIS MONTESQUIEU, DE L’ESPRIT DES Lois 1035 (Robert Derathé ed., Garnier Prères 1973) (1748).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pek van Andel and Danièle Bourcier

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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. See JOHN GRIFFITHS ET AL., EUTHANASIA & LAW IN THE NETHERLANDS (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  50. BOURGINE, supra note 24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Pek van Andel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danièle Bourcier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 1822 East Mall, V6T 1Z1, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Marilyn MacCrimmon

  2. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 55 Fifth Avenue, 10003, New York, NY, USA

    Peter Tillers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Andel, P., Bourcier, D. (2002). Serendipity and Abduction in Proofs, Presumptions and Emerging Laws. In: MacCrimmon, M., Tillers, P. (eds) The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 94. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1792-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1792-8_14

  • Publisher Name: Physica, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-00323-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-1792-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation