Abstract
The pragmatist philosopher Peirce insisted that besides deduction and induction there is a third main form of inference, abduction, which is the only type of inference capable of producing new ideas. Also he defined abduction as a stage of the methodological process in science, where hypotheses are formed to explain anomalies. Basing on these seminal ideas, scholars have proposed modified, widened or alternative definitions of abduction and devised taxonomies of abductive inferences. Influenced by Peirce’s seminal writings and subsequent treatments on abduction in philosophy of science, design scholars have in the last 40 years endeavoured to shed light on design by means of the concept of abduction. The first treatment was provided by March in 1976. He viewed that abduction, which he called “productive reasoning”, is the key mode of reasoning in design. He also presented a three-step cyclic design process, similar to Peirce’s methodological process in science. Among the many other later treatments of design abduction, Roozenburg’s definition of explanatory and innovative abduction is noteworthy. However, an evaluation of the related literature suggests that research into abduction in design is still in an undeveloped stage. This research shows gaps in coverage, lack of depth and diverging outcomes. By focusing on the differences between science and design as well as on empirical knowledge of different phenomena comprising design, new conceptions of abduction in design are derived. Given the differences of context, abduction in design shows characteristics not yet found or identified in science. For example, abduction can occur in connection to practically all inference types in design; it is a property of an inference besides an inference itself. A number of the most important abductive inference types as they occur in design are identified and discussed in more detail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Recent developments of abduction in philosophy of science highlight broader and more dynamic understanding of this concept but they have not yet had impact on the research on abduction in design.
- 2.
Psillos (2009) states on this: “This creates a certain tension in Peirce’s account. Hypothesis is ampliative and the sole generator of new ideas or content. And yet, in the syllogistic conception of hypothetic inference, the new ideas or content must already be there before they are accepted as the conclusion of the inference.” However, this commonly presented view can be debated. Verene (2008) has argued that Aristotle’s theory of syllogisms was actually twofold: a syllogism serves both as an instrument of demonstration and as a means for the generation of new ideas. Thus (Verene 1981): “The invention of an argument requires the invention of the middle term of the syllogism. The creation of the middle term and the needed premises are aspects of a common process; they come into being at the same time.” If we subscribe to the conception of syllogisms as advanced by Verene, the tension alleged by Psillos disappears (see also Paavola 2004).
- 3.
It is noteworthy that Hintikka (2007, p. 55) advises not to use the word induction in the case of hypothesis testing: “[...] I do not think that it is instructive to call such reasoning inductive, but this is a merely terminological matter”. Indeed, if the meaning of the term induction is changed in the way Peirce does, the question emerges how should the types of reasoning traditionally referred to as induction be called.
- 4.
Actually it is not clear whether he was aware of the method of analysis in the first place. In one instance, he wrote about analysis and synthesis as used in science: “This method of procedure is that Analytic Method to which modern physics owes all its triumphs.” (Feibleman 1969). However, from the context it emerges that he is not discussing the method of analysis from geometry but differential calculus (also called analysis). Even more strangely, he compares analysis, in this same sense of differential calculus, to Hegel’s method of analysis and synthesis (Feibleman 1969). These failures to discuss the method of analysis, when it would have been apt and deserved, would be understandable if he was not aware of the method of analysis.
- 5.
Peckhaus (2002) characterises regressive analysis in terms that could be used for abduction as well:”…regressive analysis is not completely logically determined, but has elements of contingency, creativity and intuition”.
- 6.
Thus, we tend to agree with Pietarinen (2014): “Another way of putting a related point across is to observe that, taking retroduction only as a converse of deduction, or simply as reasoning from effects to causes, or from the major premiss and the conclusion to the minor premiss, is a limiting view of retroduction.”
- 7.
For example, abduction-1 as defined by Dorst (2011).
- 8.
Here we follow the intepretation of Suwa et al. (2000), according to which it is situated invention (interpreted here as situational novelty) that occurs in design, in contrast to historical invention (first time in history) and psychological invention (first time for the person in question), concepts defined by Boden (1996). Note that in science, historical inventions are targeted; nevertheless, these will emerge only through psychological invention.
- 9.
However, of course information acquired from literature or colleagues may also trigger a creative abduction.
- 10.
Dorst’s (2006) critical remarks regarding the customary idea of a specific design problem providing a starting point for design emphasise this point; “If the “design problem” in general is not knowable at any specific point in the design process; and if it is evolving in the design process—at least until the creation of the design concept, and possibly beyond that point; and if the connotations of the very concepts that are used to describe a “design problem” are shifting as a part of the design effort; then we need to radically reconsider our use of the term “design problem.””
- 11.
Indeed, Paavola’s (2004) characterization of strategic abduction approaches the understanding of abduction as composition: “This is strategic thinking: the constraints and hints that help in hypothesis finding are taken into account. And the goal in abductive inference (at least in most cases) is to find an overall pattern into which all evidence and clues fit … and this phase especially requires that various inferential moves be put together skillfully and by taking various clues and constraints into account (a paradigmatic case is detective stories, but this is in itself a very general model).”
- 12.
It may be asked whether it is necessary to discuss abductive composition and decomposition separately when they logically seem to be the two sides of one coin: the former starts from parts and creates a whole, the latter starts from a whole and creates parts. Both are applicable to the design problem and to its solution, and they often occur sequentially. A problem is often decomposed into subproblems (sub-functions) because it is easier to handle smaller problems. Once sub-solutions (solutions to sub-functions or subproblems) are found, they need to be composed into a whole solution. However, decomposition can also be applied to a solution (structure), if we need to allocate its components to different manufacturers or distinguish between parts that need to be made vs. those to purchase off-the-shelf. Likewise, composition can also be applied to functions, if we identify sub-functions that are realisable as a single entity. For example, if we need to convert electrical energy to rotational motion (realisable as an electric motor), and we need to reduce the speed of rotation (a gearbox), we may combine the two sub-functions because we recognise the possibility to use a gearmotor (a combination of motor and gearbox). Thus, the problems triggering abductive composition, on one hand, and abductive decomposition, on the other hand, are different and various, and it seems safe to treat them separately.
- 13.
In more recent times, Bergson has had ideas aligning to Plato’s method of collection and division (Lawlor & Moulard Leonard 2013).
- 14.
This way of contrasting analogy to other well-known types of reasoning, presented in (“Analogy” 2015), deserves to be justified. Of course, the very purpose of induction is to generalize. Regarding deduction, Peirce (CP 2.620, 1878) states: “All deduction is of this character; it is merely the application of general rules to particular cases.” And regarding abduction (Peirce CP 7.218,1901): “Abduction seeks theory”.
- 15.
The concept seems to originate from research on perception in the 1950s (Halle and Stevens 1959). The idea is that “speech perception involves reconstructing the production plan” (Bever and Poeppel 2010), where speech perception refers to analysis and (internal) reconstruction of the production plan of speech equates to synthesis. This mechanism has been argued to exist also in reading and visual recognition. An up-to-date description of analysis by synthesis is provided in (Poeppel et al. 2008): “In particular, analysis-by-synthesis, or perception driven by predictive coding based on internal forward models, is a decidedly active stance towards perception that has been characterized as a ‘hypothesize-and-test’ approach. A minimal amount of signal triggers internal guesses about the perceptual target representation; the guesses (hypotheses) are recoded, or synthesized, into a format that permits comparison with the input signal.” This understanding of analysis by synthesis seems to be applicable also to the use of this approach in design.
References
Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Logical investigations into discovery and explanation, Synthese Library, vol. 330. Dordrecht: Springer.
Analogy. (2015, November 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on Nov 28, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analogy&oldid=690822710
Aristotle (n.d.) Nicomachean ethics [electronic resource]. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
Bartha, P. (2013). Analogy and analogical reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/reasoning-analogy/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
Bever, T. G., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Analysis by synthesis: A (re-) emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics, 4(2–3), 174–200.
Boden, M. A. (1996). Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braha, D., & Maimon, O. (1997). The design process: Properties, paradigms, and structure. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 27(2), 146–166.
Casakin, H. P., & Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: The role of guidance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 105–119.
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Xie, Y., & Zhao, M. (2015a). A new model of conceptual design based on scientific ontology and intentionality theory. Part I: The conceptual foundation. Design Studies, 37, 12–36.
Chen, Y., Zhao, M., Xie, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2015b). A new model of conceptual design based on scientific ontology and intentionality theory. Part II: The process model. Design Studies, 38, 139–160.
Cramer-Petersen, C.L., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2015). Reasoning in design: Idea generation condition effects on reasoning processes and evaluation of ideas. Proceedings of the 22nd Innovation and Product Development Management Conference, June 14–16, Copenhagen, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM).
Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Dunne, D. D., & Dougherty, D. (2016). Abductive reasoning: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex product innovation. Organization Studies, 37(2), 131–159.
Eco, U. (1983). Horns, hooves, insteps: Some hypotheses on three types of abduction. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of three. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (pp. 198–220). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U., & Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.). (1983). The sign of three. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eekels, J., & Roozenburg, N. F. (1991). A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: Their similarities and differences. Design Studies, 12(4), 197–203.
Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce’s theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Feibleman, J. K. (1969). An introduction to the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce: Interpreted as a system. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Flórez, J. A. (2014). Peirce’s theory of the origin of abduction in Aristotle. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 50(2), 265.
Fregene, K., & Bolden, C. L. (2010). Dynamics and control of a biomimetic single-wing nano air vehicle. Proceedings of IEEE American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 51–56.
Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction. Insight and trial. A practical logic of cognitive systems (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gabbay, D. M., Thagard, P., Woods, J., & Meijers, A. W. (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Gero, J. S. (1999). Constructive memory in design thinking. In Design thinking research symposium: Design representation (pp. 29–35). Cambridge: MIT.
Goel, V. (1988). Complicating the ‘logic of design’. Design Studies, 9(4), 229–234.
Goel, A. K. (1997). Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert, 12(3), 62–70.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.
Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and human interests (2nd ed.pp. 147–148). London: Heinemann.
Halle, M., & Stevens, K. (1959). Analysis by synthesis. In W. Wathen-Dunn & L. E. Woods (Eds.), Proceeding of the seminar on speech compression and processing (Vol. II.) Paper D7.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.
Harman, G. (1968). Knowledge, inference, and explanation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5(3), 164–173.
Hintikka, J. (1999). What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. In Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery (pp. 91–113). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hintikka, J., & Remes, U. (1974). The method of analysis: Its geometrical origin and its general significance. Boston: D. Reidel.
Hoffmann, M. H. (2010). “Theoric transformations”and a new classification of abductive inferences. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 46(4), 570–590.
Hubka, V., & Eder, W. E. (1992). Engineering design. Zürich: Heurista.
Hughes, J. (2009). Practical reasoning and engineering. In D. M. Gabbay, A. Meijers, P. Thagard, & J. Woods (Eds.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 375–402).
Koestler, A. (1975). The act of creation. London: Picador.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26, 15–28.
Koskela, L., Codinhoto, R., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Kagioglou, M. (2014). The Aristotelian proto-theory of design. In A. Chakrabarti & L. T. M. Blessing (Eds.), An anthology of theories and models of design: Philosophy, approaches and empirical explorations (pp. 285–304). London: Springer.
Kroll, E. (2013). Design theory and conceptual design: Contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 165–183.
Kroll, E., & Farbman, I. (2016). Casting innovative aerospace design case studies in the parameter analysis framework to uncover the design process of experts. Design Science, 2(e2).
Kroll, E., & Koskela, L. (2015). On abduction in design. In J. S. Gero & S. Hanna (Eds.), Design computing and cognition ‘14. Cham: Springer.
Kroll, E., & Koskela, L. (2016). Explicating concepts in reasoning from function to form by two-step innovative abductions. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), 30, 125–137.
Kroll, E., Condoor, S. S., & Jansson, D. G. (2001). Innovative conceptual design: Theory and application of parameter analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lagerlund, H. (2016). Medieval theories of the syllogism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed..) URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/medieval-syllogism/>. Accesses 20 Apr 2016.
Lawlor, L., & Moulard Leonard, V. (2013). Henri Bergson. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 ed..) URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/bergson/>. Accessed 20 Dec 2015.
Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. London: Architectural Press.
Lu, C.-Y., & Liu, A. (2012). Abductive reasoning for design synthesis. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 61, 143–146.
Ma, M., & Pietarinen, A. V. (2016). A dynamic approach to Peirce’s interrogative construal of abductive logic. If CoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 3(3), 73–104.
Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science. Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Magnani, L. (2004). Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 219–247.
Magnani, L. (2005). Inductive generalizations and manipulative abduction. Department of Philosophy and Computational Philosophy Laboratory, University of Pavia. http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~oray/AIAI05/paper_magnani.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
Maher, M. L., & Poon, J. (1996). Modeling design exploration as co-evolution. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(3), 195–209.
March, L. (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In L. March (Ed.), The architecture of form (pp. 1–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdams, D. A., & Wood, K. L. (2000). Quantitative measures for design by analogy. Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (DETC’00), September 10–13, Baltimore.
McJohn, S. M. (1993). On uberty: Legal reasoning by analogy and Peirce’s theory of abduction. Willamette Law Review, 29, 191–235.
Minnameier, G. (2004). Peirce-suit of truth – Why inference to the best explanation and abduction ought not to be confused. Erkenntnis, 60, 75–105.
Newton I. (2003) Opticks. (great mind series), Prometheus books.
Nickles, T. (Ed.). (1980). Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Niiniluoto, I. (1999a). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science, S436–S451.
Niiniluoto, I. (1999b). Abduction and geometrical analysis. Notes on Charles S. Peirce and Edgar Allan Poe. In L. Magnani et al. (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 267–283.
Paavola, S. (2006). Hansonian and Harmanian abduction as models of discovery. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 93–108.
Paavola, S. (2012). On the origin of ideas. An abductivist approach to discovery. Revised and enlarged edition of a dissertation (2006). Saarbrücken: Lap Lambert academic Publishing.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Three abductive solutions to the Meno Paradox – With instinct, inference, and distributed cognition. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 24(3–4), 235–253.
Pauwels, P., & Bod, R. (2014). Architectural design thinking as a form of model-based reasoning. In L. Magnani (Ed.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology, Studies in applied philosophy, Epistemology and rational ethics (Vol. 8). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Peckhaus, V. (2002). Regressive analysis. Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse (Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy), 5, 97–110.
Peirce, Charles S. [CP (volume.paragraph, year] (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 1–6, Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P., (eds.), Vol. 7–8, Burks, A. W., (ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1967). Manuscripts in the Houghton library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Peirce, Charles S. [W (volume: page numbers, year)] (1982–) Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, 6 vols. (to date), the Peirce Edition Project (eds). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, Charles S. [EP (volume: page numbers, year)] (1992–8) The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, 2 vols., the Peirce Edition Project (eds). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, Charles S. [PPM (page numbers, year)] (1997) Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking. The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, Ann Turrisi (ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pietarinen, A. V. J. (2014). The science to save us from philosophy of science. Axiomathes, 1–18.
Poeppel, D., Idsardi, W. J., & van Wassenhove, V. (2008). Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1071–1086.
Pray, L. (2008). Discovery of DNA structure and function: Watson and Crick. Nature Education, 1(1), 100.
Psillos, S. (2009). An explorer upon untrodden ground: Peirce on abduction. Handbook of the history of logic: Inductive logic, 10, 117–151.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roozenburg, N. F. M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Design Studies, 14, 4–18.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: fundamentals and methods. Chapter 4. Chichester: Wiley.
Schickore, J. (2014). Scientific discovery. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/scientific-discovery/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
Schön, D. A. (1993). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schurz, G. (2008). Patterns of abduction. Synthese, 164(2), 201–234.
Smith, G. F., & Browne, G. J. (1993). Conceptual foundations of design problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 23(5), 1209–1219.
Snyder, L. J. (1997). Discoverers’ induction. Philosophy of Science, 64(4), 580–604.
Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: Important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–567.
Takeda, H. (1994). Abduction for design. In J. S. Gero & E. Tyugu (Eds.), Formal design methods for CAD (pp. 221–244). Amsterdam.
Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). Modeling design processes. AI Magazine, 11(4), 37–48.
Takeda, H., Sasaki, H., Nomaguchi, Y., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., Tomiyama, T. (2003). Universal abduction studio–proposal of a design support environment for creative thinking in design. Proceedings of the 14th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED 03), Stockholm, Aug. 19–21.
Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Mathys, N. J. (1997). Stretch targets: What makes them effective? The Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 48–60.
Tomiyama, T., Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. (2003). Abduction for creative design. Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (DETC’03), (pp. 543–552), Sept 2–6, Chicago.
Ullah, A. M. M. S., Rashid, M. M., & Tamaki, J. (2012). On some unique features of C–K theory of design. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 5, 55–66.
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R., Soler-Toscano, F., & Nepomuceno-Fernández, Á. (2013). An epistemic and dynamic approach to abductive reasoning: Abductive problem and abductive solution. Journal of Applied Logic, 11(4), 505–522.
Verene, D. P. (1981). Vico’s science of imagination. London: Cornell University Press.
Verene, D. P. (2008). The history of philosophy: A reader’s guide. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Vermaas, P. E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: Four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(3), 191–202.
Wilson, C. S. J. (1979). Alvar Aalto and the state of modernism. International Architect, 1(2), 27–32.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the insightful comments and helpful suggestions by the editors and by Dr. Glenn Ballard.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koskela, L., Paavola, S., Kroll, E. (2018). The Role of Abduction in Production of New Ideas in Design. In: Vermaas, P., Vial, S. (eds) Advancements in the Philosophy of Design. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73302-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73302-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73301-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73302-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)