Volume 22, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this paper we seek an inferential and cognitive model explaining some characteristics of abduction to composite hypotheses. In the first section, we introduce the matter of composite hypotheses, stressing how it is coherent with the intuitive and philosophical contention that a single event can be caused not only by several causes acting together, but also by several kinds of causation. In the second section, we argue that gossip could serve as an interesting model to study the generation of composite hypotheses at a larger scale: several characteristics of gossip (for instance its being diluted over time and its collaborative dimension) make it extremely prone to produce composite hypotheses considering different levels of causation. In the third and final section, we try to illustrate some specificities of abduction to composite hypotheses for individual agents basing on the analysis of collective agents.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allemang, D. , Tanner, M.C. , Bylander, T. , & Josephson, J.R
    (1987) Computational complexity of hypothesis assembly. InProceedings of the Lentil International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2), pp.1112–1119.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atran, S
    (2002) In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayim, M
    (1994) Knowledge through the grapevine: Gossip as inquiry. In R.F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good Gossip (pp.85–99). Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardone, E. & Magnani, L
    (2010) The appeal of gossiping fallacies and its eco-logical roots. Pragmatics & Cognition, 18(2), 365–396. doi: 10.1075/pc.18.2.06bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18.2.06bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Beersma, B. , & Van Kleef, G.A
    (2011) How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 642–649. doi: 10.1177/1948550611405073
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405073 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bertolotti, T
    (2012) From mindless modeling to scientific models: The case of emerging models. In L. Magnani & P. Li (Eds.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Western & Eastern Studies (pp.75–104). Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑29928‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29928-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertolotti, T. , & Magnani, L
    (2014) An epistemological analysis of gossip and gossip based knowledge. Synthese, 191, 4037–4067. doi: 10.1007/s11229‑014‑0514‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0514-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010) The role of agency detection in the invention of supernatural beings: An abductive approach. In L. Magnani , W. Carnielli & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery (pp.195–213). Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyer, P
    (2001) Religion Explained. London: Vintage U.K. Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunswik, E
    (1952) The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bylander, T. , & Mittal, S
    (1986) CRSL: A language for classificatory problem solving and uncertainty handling. AI Magazine, 7(3), 66–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, A
    (2005) Word, niche and super-niche: How language makes minds matter more. Theoria, 54, 255–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunbar, R
    (2004) Gossip in an evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110. doi: 10.1037/1089‑2680.8.2.100
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 [Google Scholar]
  14. Foster, E.K
    (2004) Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99. doi: 10.1037/1089‑2680.8.2.78
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gigerenzer, G. , & Brighton, H
    (2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2008.01006.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Gigerenzer, G. , & Selten, R
    (2002) Bounded Rationality. The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodman, R.F. , & Ben-Ze’ev, A
    (Eds.) (1994) Good Gossip. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hammond, K.R. & Steward, T.R
    (Eds.) (2001) The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hart, H.L.A. , & Honoré, T
    (1985) Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198254744.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198254744.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Josephson, J.R. , Chandrasekharan, S. , Smith, J.W.J. , & Tanner, M.C
    (1987) A mechanism for forming composite explanatory hypotheses. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17(3), 445–454. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1987.4309060
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1987.4309060 [Google Scholar]
  21. Josephson, J.R. , & Josephson, S.G
    (Eds.) (1994) Abductive Inference. Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511530128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511530128 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kelemen, D
    (2005) Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15(5), 295–301. doi: 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00672.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Kelso, J.A.S
    (2009) Synergies: Atoms of brain and behavior. In D. Sternad (Ed.), Progress in Motor Control (pp.83–91). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑77064‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_5 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, J.H. , & Pearl, J
    (1983) A computational model for causal and diagnostic reasoning in inference systems. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp.190–194).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kominsky, J.F. , Phillips, J. , Gerstenberg, T. , Lagnado, D. , & Knobe, J
    (2014) Causal supersession. In P. Bello , M. Guarini , M. McShane , & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Magnani, L
    (2015) The eco-cognitive model of abduction. ‘Apagwgh¯ now: Naturalizing the Logic of Abduction. Journal of Applied Logic, 13, 285–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jal.2015.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) Is abduction ignorance-preserving? Conventions, models, and fictions in science. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 21(6), 882–914. doi: 10.1093/jigpal/jzt012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzt012 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2009) Abductive Cognition: The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mithen, S
    (1999) Handaxes and ice age carvings: Hard evidence for the evolution of consciousness. In A. Hameroff , A. Kaszniak , & D. Chalmers (Eds.), Toward a Science of Consciousness III: The Third Tucson Discussions and Debates (pp.281–296). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind. A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion, and Science. London: Thames and Hudson.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Peirce, C.S
    (1931–1958) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vols. 1-6, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.); vols. 7-8, A.W. Burks (Ed.)) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shadish, W.R. , Cook, T.D. , & Campbell, D.T
    (2002) Experimental and QuasiExperimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston / New York: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Simon, H
    (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 99–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Thagard, P
    (1997) Collaborative knowledge. Noûs, 31, 242–261. doi: 10.1111/0029‑4624.00044
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00044 [Google Scholar]
  35. Vicente, K.J
    (2003) Beyond the lens model and direct perception: Toward a broader ecological psychology. Ecological Psychology, 15(3), 241–267. doi: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1503_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1503_4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yerkovich, S
    (1977) Gossiping as a way of speaking. Journal of Communication, 27, 192–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1977.tb01817.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01817.x [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): abduction; causal reasoning; composite hypotheses; gossip.; social cognition
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error