• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Model-based reasoning in science and technology : Abduction, logic, and computational discovery >Abduction, Induction, and Analogy On the Compound Character of Analogical Inferences
【24h】

Abduction, Induction, and Analogy On the Compound Character of Analogical Inferences

机译：外推，归纳和类比推论的复合特征

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Analogical reasoning has been investigated by philosophers and psychologists who have produced different approaches like 'schema induction' (Gick and Holyoak) or the 'structure-mapping theory' (Gentner). What is commonplace, however, is that analogical reasoning involves processes of matching and mapping. Apart from the differences that exist between these approaches, one important problem appears to be the lack of inferential precision with respect to these processes of matching and mapping. And this is all the more problematic, because analogical reasoning is widely conceived of as 'inductive' reasoning. However, inductive reasoning - in a narrow and technical sense - is not creative, whereas analogical reasoning counts as an important source of human creativity. It is C. S. Peirce's merit to have pointed to this fact and that induction can merely extrapolate and generalize something already at hand, but not the kind of reasoning that leads to new concepts. Indeed, inventive reasoning is usually identified with abduction, and consequently abduction should play at least some role in analogy. Peirce has claimed that analogy is a compound form of reasoning that integrates abduction and induction, but the intriguing question is still, how these two inferences are to be reconstructed precisely. In the proposed paper I hold that analogical reasoning can indeed be analyzed in this way and that this helps us to reach a much more precise and differentiated understanding of the forms and processes of analogical reasoning. In particular I hold that (at least) two forms of analogical reasoning have to be distinguished, because theyrepresent different inferential paths. The underlying inferential processed will be explicated in detail and illustrated by various examples.
机译：哲学家和心理学家对类比推理进行了研究，他们提出了不同的方法，例如“模式归纳”（Gick和Holyoak）或“结构映射理论”（Gentner）。然而，常见的是类比推理涉及匹配和映射的过程。除了这些方法之间存在的差异外，一个重要的问题似乎是针对这些匹配和映射过程的推理精度不足。而且这更加成问题，因为类比推理被广泛认为是“归纳”推理。但是，从狭义和技术上讲，归纳推理不是创造力，而类比推理则是人类创造力的重要来源。皮尔士（C. S. Peirce）的长处在于指出了这一事实，而归纳法只能推断和概括已经存在的事物，而不能推理出导致新概念的那种推理。实际上，发明性推理通常与绑架有关，因此绑架应至少在类推中发挥某些作用。皮尔斯（Peirce）声称类推是推理的综合形式，融合了归纳和归纳，但有趣的问题仍然是，如何精确地重构这两个推论。在所提出的论文中，我认为类推推理的确可以通过这种方式进行分析，并且这有助于我们对类推推理的形式和过程达成更加精确和差异化的理解。我特别认为（至少）必须区分两种类比推理形式，因为它们代表不同的推论路径。将详细说明所处理的基础推论，并通过各种示例进行说明。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号