Abdüktif (Çıkarımsal) Akıl Yürütmenin Örnekler Çerçevesinde Sunumu

Abstract

Abdüktif akıl yürütme, belirsizlik ve eksik bilgi içeren durumlarla karşı karşıya kalındığında, mantıklı açıklamalar ve hipotezler üretmek için kullanılan bir düşünme tekniğidir. Bu düşünme süreci, bilgiyi ve kanıtları mantıklı bir şekilde birleştirerek yeni fikirlerin ve çözümlerin ortaya çıkmasını sağlar. Abdüktif akıl yürütmeyi daha net anlamak için teorik temelleri yanında pratik uygulamaları hakkında da derinlemesine bir anlayış geliştirmek gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle oluşturulan çalışmada abdüktif akıl yürütmenin, sadece bilim veya felsefe gibi belirli alanlarda değil, aynı zamanda iş, eğitim, ilişkiler ve diğer birçok yaşam alanında da kullanıldığını örnekler vererek göstermek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmada, abdüktif akıl yürütmenin önemini vurgulamak ve bu konuda farkındalık yaratmak hedeflenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda abdüktif akıl yürütme, belirsizlik durumlarında bile mantıksal çıkarım yapabilme özelliğine sahip olduğu, teorikte olduğu gibi pratikte de tümdengelimsel ve tümevarımsal akıl yürütme yöntemlerinden farklı olduğu, şaşırtıcı veya çok karmaşık bir olguyu dahi makul olacak şekilde açıklayan bir akıl yürütme yolu olarak kullanıldığı verilen örnekler çerçevesinde görülmüştür. Abductive reasoning is a thinking technique used to produce logical explanations and hypotheses when faced with situations that involve uncertainty and incomplete information. This thinking process logically combines information and evidence to produce new ideas and solutions. In order to understand abductive reasoning more clearly, it is necessary to develop an in-depth understanding of its practical applications as well as its theoretical foundations. For this reason, the aim of the study is to show that abductive reasoning is used not only in certain areas such as science or philosophy, but also in business, education, relationships and many other areas of life by giving examples. In line with this purpose, the study aims to emphasize the importance of abductive reasoning and to raise awareness on this subject. As a result of the study, it was seen that abductive reasoning has the ability to make logical inferences even in situations of uncertainty, that it is different from deductive and inductive reasoning methods in practice as well as in theory, and that it is used as a way of reasoning that explains even surprising or very complex phenomena in a reasonable way within the framework of the examples given.

Keywords

• Akıl yürütme
• abdüktif akıl yürütme
• tümdengelimsel akıl yürütme
• tümevarımsal akıl yürütme.

Presentation of Abductive Reasoning Within the Framework of Examples

Abstract

Abductive reasoning is a cognitive approach used to generate plausible explanations and hypotheses when faced with situations involving uncertainty and incomplete information. This reasoning process facilitates the emergence of new ideas and solutions by logically integrating available information and evidence. In order to gain a clearer understanding of abductive reasoning, it is essential to develop an in-depth perspective not only on its theoretical foundations but also on its practical applications. Accordingly, this study aims to demonstrate that abductive reasoning is employed not only in specific fields such as science and philosophy, but also in various areas of life including business, education, interpersonal relationships, and more, by presenting illustrative scenarios in comparison with other types of reasoning. In line with this objective, the study seeks to emphasise the significance of abductive reasoning and raise awareness regarding its broader relevance. The findings indicate that abductive reasoning enables logical inference even under conditions of uncertainty, differs from deductive and inductive reasoning both in theory and in practice, and offers a way of explaining even surprising or highly complex phenomena in a rational and reasonable manner.

Keywords

• Reasoning
• abductive reasoning
• deductive reasoning
• inductive reasoning.

References

1. Akpolat, T. (2023). Abdüktif düşünme becerisi, İçinde G. Ekici (Ed.), Düşünme becerileri ve uygulama örnekleri kılavuz kitabı (ss. 1-26). Vizetek Yayınları.
2. Akpolat, T. (2023). Abdüktif düşünme becerisi, İçinde G. Ekici (Ed.), Düşünme becerileri ve uygulama örnekleri kılavuz kitabı (ss. 1-26). Vizetek Yayınları.
3. Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2022 Sayı 51: Özel sayı 1, Denizli, ss. 395-407
4. Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2022 Sayı 51: Özel sayı 1, Denizli, ss. 395-407
5. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. The Free Press.
6. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. The Free Press.
7. Brown, A. L. (2016). The role of abductive reasoning in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1133344
8. Brown, A. L. (2016). The role of abductive reasoning in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1133344

9. Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
10. Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11. Douven, I. D. (2011). Abduction. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
12. Douven, I. D. (2011). Abduction. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
13. Durhan, G. (2020). Günlük Yaşamda Kullanılan Bir Düşünme Biçimi Olarak Abdüktif Akıl Yürütme, Beytulhikme, 10 (2), 663-675. https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.1538
14. Durhan, G. (2020). Günlük Yaşamda Kullanılan Bir Düşünme Biçimi Olarak Abdüktif Akıl Yürütme, Beytulhikme, 10 (2), 663-675. https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.1538
15. Dreamson, N., and Khine, P. H. H. (2022). Abductive reasoning: A design thinking experiment. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 41(3), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12424
16. Dreamson, N., and Khine, P. H. H. (2022). Abductive reasoning: A design thinking experiment. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 41(3), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12424
17. Campos, D. G. (2011). “On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation”. Synthese. 180 (3): 419–442. https://doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3. S2CID 791688
18. Campos, D. G. (2011). “On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation”. Synthese. 180 (3): 419–442. https://doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3. S2CID 791688
19. Flach, P. A.; Kakas, A. C., eds. (2000). Abduction and Induction: Essays on their Relation and Integration. Springer. p. xiii. Retrieved October 31, 2016. This book grew out of a series of workshops on this topic. [Budapest 1996; Nagoya 1997; Brighton 1998]
20. Flach, P. A.; Kakas, A. C., eds. (2000). Abduction and Induction: Essays on their Relation and Integration. Springer. p. xiii. Retrieved October 31, 2016. This book grew out of a series of workshops on this topic. [Budapest 1996; Nagoya 1997; Brighton 1998]
21. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGram-Hill Publishing.
22. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGram-Hill Publishing.
23. Gierasimczuk, N., Maas, H. & Raijmakers, M. (2012). Logical and Psychological Analysis of Deductive Mastermind.. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 883. 1-13.
24. Gierasimczuk, N., Maas, H. & Raijmakers, M. (2012). Logical and Psychological Analysis of Deductive Mastermind.. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 883. 1-13.
25. Hessel, J., Hwang, J. D., Park, J. S., Zellers, R., Bhagavatula, C., Rohrbach, A., Saenko, K., & Choi, Y. (2022). The abduction of Sherlock Holmes: A dataset for visual abductive reasoning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04800
26. Hessel, J., Hwang, J. D., Park, J. S., Zellers, R., Bhagavatula, C., Rohrbach, A., Saenko, K., & Choi, Y. (2022). The abduction of Sherlock Holmes: A dataset for visual abductive reasoning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04800
27. Hidayah, I. N., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, and Sudirman (2020). Characteristics of students’ abductive reasoning in solving algebra problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 347-362. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11869.347- 362.
28. Hidayah, I. N., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, and Sudirman (2020). Characteristics of students’ abductive reasoning in solving algebra problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 347-362. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11869.347- 362.
29. Karasar, N. (2024). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (39. Baskı). Nobel.
30. Karasar, N. (2024). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (39. Baskı). Nobel.
31. Kim, C. M., Belland, B. R., Baabdullah, A., Lee, E., Dinç, E., & Zhang, A. Y. (2021). An ethnomethodological study of abductive reasoning while tinkering. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211008111. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008111
32. Kim, C. M., Belland, B. R., Baabdullah, A., Lee, E., Dinç, E., & Zhang, A. Y. (2021). An ethnomethodological study of abductive reasoning while tinkering. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211008111. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008111
33. Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking And Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. MIT’s Design Issues, 26 (1), 15-28.
34. Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking And Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. MIT’s Design Issues, 26 (1), 15-28.
35. Lawson A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42(6): 716–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067.
36. Lawson A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42(6): 716–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067.
37. Magnani L. (2000). Abduction, reason and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Magnani L. (2000). Abduction, reason and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Magnani, L., & Nersessian, N. J. (2002). Model-based reasoning: Bridging cognitive science and education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
40. Magnani, L., & Nersessian, N. J. (2002). Model-based reasoning: Bridging cognitive science and education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
41. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
42. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
43. McGregor, S. L. T. (2014). Abductive Reasoning in Everyday Life: Implications for Home Economics. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 19 (1), http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/19- 1/mcgregor4.html.
44. McGregor, S. L. T. (2014). Abductive Reasoning in Everyday Life: Implications for Home Economics. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 19 (1), http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/19- 1/mcgregor4.html.
45. Muehlhauser, L. (2009, November 19). Intro to logic: Abductive reasoning [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3703
46. Muehlhauser, L. (2009, November 19). Intro to logic: Abductive reasoning [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3703
47. Pareschi, R. (2023). Abductive reasoning with the GPT-4 language model: Case studies from criminal investigation, medical practice, scientific research. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10250
48. Pareschi, R. (2023). Abductive reasoning with the GPT-4 language model: Case studies from criminal investigation, medical practice, scientific research. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10250
49. Patokorpi, E. (2006). Role of abductive reasoning in digital interaction (Doctoral thesis, Åbo Akademi University, Finland).
50. Patokorpi, E. (2006). Role of abductive reasoning in digital interaction (Doctoral thesis, Åbo Akademi University, Finland).
51. Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
52. Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
53. Peirce, C. S. (1878), “Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis”, Popular Science Monthly, v. 13, pp. 470–82, see 472. Collected Papers 2.619–44, see 623.
54. Peirce, C. S. (1878), “Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis”, Popular Science Monthly, v. 13, pp. 470–82, see 472. Collected Papers 2.619–44, see 623.
55. Peirce, C. S. (1901), “On the Logic of drawing History from Ancient Documents especially from Testimonies” Collected Papers v. 7, paragraph 219.
56. Peirce, C. S. (1901), “On the Logic of drawing History from Ancient Documents especially from Testimonies” Collected Papers v. 7, paragraph 219.
57. Peirce, C.S. (1902), application to the Carnegie Institution, see MS L75.329-330, from Draft D Archived 2011-05-24 at the Wayback Machine of Memoir 27.
58. Peirce, C.S. (1902), application to the Carnegie Institution, see MS L75.329-330, from Draft D Archived 2011-05-24 at the Wayback Machine of Memoir 27.
59. Peirce, C. S., “A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic” (1903), Essential Peirce v. 2, p. 287
60. Peirce, C. S., “A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic” (1903), Essential Peirce v. 2, p. 287
61. Peirce, C. S. (1908), “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”, Hibbert Journal v. 7, pp. 90–112.
62. Peirce, C. S. (1908), “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”, Hibbert Journal v. 7, pp. 90–112.
63. Peirce, C. S (1910). A Letter to Paul Carus circa, Collected Papers v. 8, paragraphs 227–228. See under “Hypothesis” at the Commens Dictionary of Peirce’s Terms.
64. Peirce, C. S (1910). A Letter to Paul Carus circa, Collected Papers v. 8, paragraphs 227–228. See under “Hypothesis” at the Commens Dictionary of Peirce’s Terms.
65. Peirce C. S. (1931). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, eds.). Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
66. Peirce C. S. (1931). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, eds.). Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
67. Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 536.
68. Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 536.
69. Prince M.& Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching 36(5): 1420.
70. Prince M.& Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching 36(5): 1420.
71. Psillos, S. (2004). “Inference to the Best Explanation and Bayesianism,” in F. Stadler (ed.), Induction and Deduction in the Sciences, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2196-1_6
72. Psillos, S. (2004). “Inference to the Best Explanation and Bayesianism,” in F. Stadler (ed.), Induction and Deduction in the Sciences, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2196-1_6
73. Psillos S. (2011). An explorer upon untrodden ground: Peirce on abduction. In Handbook of the History of Logic, eds. Dov Gabbay, Stephan Hartmann and John Woods, 117–151. Oxford: NorthHolland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52936-7.50004-5
74. Psillos S. (2011). An explorer upon untrodden ground: Peirce on abduction. In Handbook of the History of Logic, eds. Dov Gabbay, Stephan Hartmann and John Woods, 117–151. Oxford: NorthHolland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52936-7.50004-5
75. O’Leary, D.E. (2004) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems: An Empirical Analysis of Benefits. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 1, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta.2004.1.1.63
76. O’Leary, D.E. (2004) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems: An Empirical Analysis of Benefits. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 1, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta.2004.1.1.63
77. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
78. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
79. Smith, J. D., & Johnson, R. (2018). Abductive reasoning in cognitive psychology. In K. M. Williams (Ed.), Advances in cognitive psychology (pp. 45-67). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72615-5_3
80. Smith, J. D., & Johnson, R. (2018). Abductive reasoning in cognitive psychology. In K. M. Williams (Ed.), Advances in cognitive psychology (pp. 45-67). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72615-5_3
81. Thagard, P. (2012). Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In C. Fox & D. Mickunas (Eds.), New developments in the philosophy of science (pp. 17-35). Springer.
82. Thagard, P. (2012). Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In C. Fox & D. Mickunas (Eds.), New developments in the philosophy of science (pp. 17-35). Springer.
83. Walton, D. (2001). “Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments”. Informal Logic. 21 (2): 141–169. https://doi:10.22329/ilv21i2.2241
84. Walton, D. (2001). “Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments”. Informal Logic. 21 (2): 141–169. https://doi:10.22329/ilv21i2.2241
85. Walton D. (2005). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
86. Walton D. (2005). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
87. Vince, M. (2011). Reasoning in Every Day Life. Accesse date: 16.07.2019. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b55/9b4a273a80dcea48915d.
88. Vince, M. (2011). Reasoning in Every Day Life. Accesse date: 16.07.2019. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b55/9b4a273a80dcea48915d.
89. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
90. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
91. Caiata-Zufferey, M. (2018). The abductive art of discovery: Insights from a qualitative study on unaffected women managing genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1581–1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750973
92. Caiata-Zufferey, M. (2018). The abductive art of discovery: Insights from a qualitative study on unaffected women managing genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 28(10), 1581–1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750973
93. Żelechowska, D., Żyluk, N., & Urbański, M. (2020). Find out a new method to study abductive reasoning in empirical research. Qualitative Health Research, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920909674
94. Żelechowska, D., Żyluk, N., & Urbański, M. (2020). Find out a new method to study abductive reasoning in empirical research. Qualitative Health Research, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920909674