ABDUCTIVE REASONING

Legal Technique & Logic Atty. Arsenik B. Pagaduan

Abduction – the process of reasoning that seeks to find
the best explanation for an event.

- also called retroduction and inference to the best

explanation.

- introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914),

a distinguished American philosopher.
Abduction starts with a collection of data such as a
set of facts (or events, or an observation or a
given). This data will be unexpected or anomalous,
such that accepted explanations for it are lacking.

Abduction then seeks to do two things:

1. it generates hypotheses or explanations for the

facts or events; and
2. it determines the plausibility of each proposed
explanation.
By this means abduction identifies the best
explanation for the facts. Since no other explanation
accounts for the facts as well as the best, the best
explanation is most probably correct.
In formal terms abduction can be set out in a diagram
that shows the four ingredients – the observation, the
explanation (as to what caused the thing that was
observed), the strength of the explanation and the best
conclusion that one can draw.
Here now is this diagram:

Observation: B has occurred

Explanation: ‘A causes B’ is an explanation for the

occurrence of B.

Strength of Explanation: No other explanation explains

the occurrence as well as ‘A causes B’.

Conclusion: Therefore, ‘A causes B’ is probably

correct.
Strength of the Argument:

The strength of the argument from abduction rests on two matters.

First, ‘A causes B’ is an explanation for B.

Second, ‘A causes B’ is the best available explanation for B

occurring.

Clearly this second part of the reasoning depends on those who

propound the argument having made a competent and diligent
search for all possible explanations. A less than diligent or
competent search leaves open the possibility that there is a better
undiscovered explanation. By contrast, a diligent or competent
search substantially lowers the possibility.
▪ Ordering explanations according to how good
they are is not an inherently precise undertaking.
Therefore, the claim that ‘A causes B’ is true is
made stronger if it is substantially and
demonstrably superior to the next best alternative;
if it is not, the claim for the next best and perhaps
other alternatives strengthens.
Characteristics of a Good Explanation:

1. Explanatoriness – it must explain all of the

relevant observations.

2. Depth - An explanation is not deep but shallow

when the explanation itself needs to be
explained. IOW, an explanation is shallow if it
immediately leads to another question.

3. Power - can be used successfully over a wide

range of cases.
4. Falsifiability – explanation is incompatible with
some possible outcome. Thus, it must not explain
any possible event.

5. Modesty – it must not claim too much.

6. Simplicity - is a mark of excellence in an

explanation partly because simple explanations
are easier to understand and apply, but
considerations of plausibility and aesthetics are
also at work in judgments of which explanation is
simplest.
7. Conservativeness – Explanations are better
when they force us to give up fewer well-established
beliefs.
Examples taken from Legal Theory Lexicon 089: Inference to the Best
Explanation (Abduction)

1. Helberta wakes up in the morning and goes into the kitchen. The
beans for coffee have been ground and placed in the filter bag in the
coffee maker. Helberta is positive that they did not do this last night.
The best explanation for this state of affairs is that Helberta's partner
Gertruda set up the coffee the prior evening.

2. Walter is found dead from a gunshot wound inflicted by a 45-calibre

bullet. The day before, Graham and Walter had a violent argument
during which Graham threatened to kill Walter. Graham owns a 45-
calibre revolver and cannot account for his actions during the time
period during which the shooting must have occurred. The best
explanation for these circumstances is that Graham shot Walter.
3. You are walking on the beach and see the following letters in sand:
"L i f e i s b e a u t i f u l." It is is possible that the letters were caused by
random wave action, but the best explanation is that another person
drew the letters in the sand with their finger.
Exercise 1. Imagine that you offer an explanation, and
a critic responds in the following way. Which virtue
(explanatoriness, depth, power, falsifiability, modesty,
simplicity, or conservativeness) is your critic claiming
that your explanation lacks?

1. But that won’t explain anything other than this

particular case.

2. But that conflicts with everything we know about

biology.
3. But you don’t have to claim all of that in order to
explain what we see.

4. But that just raises new questions that you need to

answer.

5. But that explains only a small part of the story.

6. But that would apply whatever happened.

Use of Abductive Reasoning in Proving Facts:

Abductive Reasoning
In both civil and criminal cases courts require a certainty
of at least 51% (and of course in civil cases this is all that
is required). This is based on abductive reasoning.

Faced with lack of certainty in fact finding, courts take

the most plausible view of the facts. The version of facts
which is legally the ‘true’ version is the version that is
most probable. Any standard of proof of 51%, or higher
must logically be the most probable.
Precautionary Principle

Since 51% is the minimum percentage to ensure that a version of

facts is most probable 51% is all that is necessary for the purposes
of abduction. In other words, 51% is pure abduction. However, in
some cases, most noticeably criminal trials, the standard of proof
is higher than 51%. In these circumstances of a standard of proof
greater than 51%, the excess percentage needs some other
justification. This can be found in the precautionary principle. This
is a special means of coping with uncertainty and it is discussed
in that context.
Answers to Exercise 1:

1. Power—good explanations ought to be widely

applicable, not so ad hoc that they explain only one
particular case.

2. Conservativeness—accepting the explanation will

force us to give up all of our beliefs about modern
biology, which are well established.

3. Modesty—the fewer claims an explanation needs,

the better.
4. Depth—a deep explanation will not simply substitute
one set of questions for another.

5. Explanatoriness—if an explanation doesn’t explain

all of a phenomenon, or at least suggest other
explanations that do, it isn’t very good.

6. Falsifiability—if the explanation is compatible with

any event, including the phenomenon not occurring,
then it cannot explain why the phenomenon occurred
instead of not occurring.
Additional Materials:
References:

Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic

9th Ed. [2015]
by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong, et al.

Legal Reasoning [2011]

by Christopher Enright