Editing Abductive reasoning (section)

====''A Theory of Probable Inference'' (1883)====
Peirce long treated abduction in terms of induction from characters or traits (weighed, not counted like objects), explicitly so in his influential 1883 "A theory of probable inference", in which he returns to involving probability in the hypothetical conclusion.<ref name="Pierce-1883">{{cite book |author-last=Peirce |author-first=Charles S. |title=Studies in Logic by Members of the Johns Hopkins University |title-link=Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography#SIL |date=1883 |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |editor-last=Peirce |editor-first=Charles S. |location=Boston, MA |chapter=A theory of probable inference |access-date=March 7, 2019 |chapter-url=http://www.commens.org/bibliography/collection_article/peirce-charles-s-1883-theory-probable-inference-studies-logic |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308080846/http://www.commens.org/bibliography/collection_article/peirce-charles-s-1883-theory-probable-inference-studies-logic |archive-date=March 8, 2019 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Like "Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis" in 1878, it was widely read (see the historical books on statistics by [[Stephen Stigler]]), unlike his later amendments of his conception of abduction. Today abduction remains most commonly understood as induction from characters and extension of a known rule to cover unexplained circumstances.

[[Sherlock Holmes]] used this method of reasoning in the stories of [[Arthur Conan Doyle]], although Holmes refers to it as "[[deductive reasoning]]".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sebeok |first1=Thomas A. |author-link1=Thomas Sebeok |last2=Umiker-Sebeok |first2=Jean |date=1979 |title='You know my method': A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes |journal=[[Semiotica]] |volume=26 |issue=3–4 |pages=203–250 |doi=10.1515/semi.1979.26.3-4.203 |s2cid=170683439 |quote=[[Marcello Truzzi]], in a searching article on Holmes's method (1973:93–126), anticipated our present work by pointing to the similarities between the detective's so-called deductions, or inductions, and Peirce's abductions, or conjectures. According to Peirce's system of logic, furthermore, Holmes's observations are themselves a form of abduction, and abduction is as legitimate a type of logical inference as either induction or deduction (Peirce 8.228).}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Niiniluoto |first=Ilkka |author-link=Ilkka Niiniluoto |date=September 1999 |title=Defending abduction |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |volume=66 |issue=Supplement&nbsp;1 |pages=S436–S451 (S440–S441) |doi=10.1086/392744 |s2cid=224841752 |quote=A historically interesting application of abduction as a heuristic method can be found in classical detective stories, as shown by the semiotical and logical essays collected in Eco and Sebeok 1983. [[C. Auguste Dupin]], the hero of [[Edgar Allan Poe]]'s novels in the 1840s, employed a method of 'ratiocination' or 'analysis' which has the structure of retroduction. Similarly, the logic of the 'deductions' of Sherlock Holmes is typically abductive.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Carson |first=David |date=June 2009 |title=The abduction of Sherlock Holmes |journal=International Journal of Police Science & Management |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=193–202 |doi=10.1350/ijps.2009.11.2.123 |s2cid=145337828 |quote=Sherlock Holmes, although a fictional character, remains renowned as a great detective. However, his methodology, which was ''abduction'' rather than deduction, and which is innocently used by many real detectives, is rarely described, discussed, or researched. This paper compares and contrasts the three forms of inferential reasoning, and makes a case for articulating and developing the role of abduction in the work, and training, of police officers. |url=https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/ws/files/84295/ijps.2009.11.2.pdf }}</ref>