a posteriori

(redirected from Abductive reasoning)
Also found in: Dictionary, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • all
  • adj
  • adv

Antonyms for a posteriori

involving reasoning from facts or particulars to general principles or from effects to causes

requiring evidence for validation or support

Related Words

derived from observed facts


References in periodicals archive ?
When placed within the context of a dual-process framework, abductive reasoning might work either to further associative intuitions or to restrain them, depending both on the cognitive complexity of the case and the extent to which the fact finder is motivated to either defend or resist her own intuitions.
Arguably, progressive focusing based on abductive reasoning can be seen as an intuitive, subjective and interpretive activity (Bringer et al.
The SCARE and SCARE-S2 mathematical formulas are both based on abductive reasoning.
Chapter 3--on design thinking-introduces abductive reasoning, "which drives the intuitive spark that leaps across the gap separating the world as it is from the world as it might be.
In summarizing his interview with Martin, Dunne (2006) suggests that a designer's approach includes: (1) an expectation of, and, therefore, a can-do attitude about, "wicked" problems, often including constraints which, Martin (2006) argues, even serve as a source of inspiration; (2) idea generation, or abductive reasoning, in addition to the deductive and inductive reasoning used in business thinking; and (3) interactive skills, especially collaboration and empathy, most often with respect to peers and consumers.
The history of science provides many reasons to believe that present scientists have not ruled out all relevant possibilities (unlike many cases of abductive reasoning in everyday life), and therefore the eliminative inference that licenses talking of current theories as approximately true should be resisted.
In Sweetser's original analysis the polysemy of conjunctions such as because (compare John passed his exams because he worked hard, which links facts in the content domain, and John worked hard, because he passed his exams, which links steps in the reasoning developing in the epistemic domain) postulates a systematic conceptual distinction between domains, which explains constructional phenomena such as intonation and clause-order patterns, while distinguishing different kinds of reasonings involving causality, including the abductive reasoning exemplified by the second example.
Instead, Lomasky holds that his argument is more similar to abductive reasoning (RFC 118).
method presented herein employs abductive reasoning (Prakken 2001).