You don't know abductive thinking

This is short introduction of abduction from an essay written by Anya Plutynski. To have a good grasp of the content, please read the following source thoroughly. I am writing this in order to allow amateur to have easier access to philosophical ideas.

source: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15321/1/Abduction.pdf (FOUR PROBLEMS OF ABDUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY)

Short introdcution

Abductive thinking is our daily skillset, we apply it in our work, research and etc. People often define it as a type of reasoning that comes up with a informed guess or hypothesis. They are probably right but you still can't define it if you can't tell the difference among the 3 types of reasoning.

To elaborate it and make the definition detailed, I should explain what deductive and inductive reasoning is first.

Deduction is said to draw conclusion of conditions via strict inference, it is a necessary reasoning to achieve certainty and have control in an event. Whereas induction, is said to draw conclusion out of evidences we observe, it is parts-to-whole approach and also experimental approach of a theory.

Boundary

A philosopher, Peirce proposed a thinking called abduction, distinct from the above 2 approaches. It is easy to tell the difference between deduction and induction since the former one takes a strict inference approach (which gives us certainty) and the latter one involves inference from cases to results or result to cases ( which gives us probable conclusion).

On the other hand, it is a bit hard to tell the difference between induction and abduction since both requires observation so that a possible conclusion can be formed, but in a sense, induction "is merely a process by which we find the general character of classes and establish natural classifications" (p.233). It makes sense if you imagine how zoologist classifies the animals. They observe animals' difference and similarities to form a result which is highly probable. However if they stretch induction beyond the limit of their observations, hypothesis pops up and that becomes the result from abduction. Anya claims that the method of hypothesis allows us to arrive at knowledge of causes and forces and enables us to see the why of things. Imagine how some scientists have a hypothesis first and then prove its validity, it makes sense to me in this way.

You might ask, if it is beyond deduction and induction, is still there a process of inference ? After all, the conclusion could be just wild guesses and imaginative hypothesis ?

Economical

We innately value our time, it is significant to take the choice of hypothesis into account when it comes to produce a reasonable result, so in a sense, ideas "naturally recommend themselves to the mind to achieve simplicity" (P. 235). Image a scientist has years of experience in his field, he has been practicing his knowledge and nurturing his intuition, when forming a hypothesis to adopt and test, he is not entirely free to consider any possible hypothesis. We can tell there is a constraint for him when it comes to forming a informed guesses due to the fact that he is well-trained in his field. These preconceived ideas are often founded based upon theoretical or empirical knowledge, even they are beyond the induction and wrong. This is how we achieve the "economical" extent with a reasonable choice of hypothesis.

In this sense, Peirce further elaborates that the abductive act is an instinctive capacity of the sufficiently prepared mind for informed guesses, for the mind has "a natural bent in accordance with nature". (from "Brown - Enciclopedie language linguistic")

There are more to be discovered in Anya Plutynski's essay, if you are not wearied of this article yet, check the source out, the link is below.

source: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15321/1/Abduction.pdf (FOUR PROBLEMS OF ABDUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY)