Abduction

Hey all you logicians. I was hoping I could get some help on a question that has been hounding me regarding abduction. Dr. Lewis and I have been emailing about this but I am still stumped. It seems to me that one cannot ultimately do abduction without the use of deduction. See the following emails. The first is my latest response and the next was Dr. Lewis' email that prompted my response.

Dear Dr. Lewis,

Thank you for your response. I did receive the handout from class and I understand your example. However my question remains. If we take your example of the court case. Are we not using deduction in the process? Do we not have the following argument?

If a suspect "has the gun, the motive and was seen in the area at the time of the murder" then they are guilty.
The third suspect "has the gun, the motive and was seen in the area at the time of the murder"
Therefore, the third suspect is guilty

Likewise, with the worldviews, we are begining with the hypothesis that, for example, theism is true. Then we begin building a case or arguments from this initial premmise. In testing several interpretations by their "coherence, that is their logical non-contradiction, their factual adequacy and their inner authenticity or viability" it weems that we are using deduction. For instance, abduction seems like a good apologetic tool in establishing the internal inconsistencies of false worldviews. By beginning with the hypothesis that it is true and then deductively showing the logical results of holding such a view. Monism logically resulting in no good or evil.

If all is one then there are no dualisms
If there are no dualisms then there is no good or evil.
Therefore, if all is one then there is no good or evil.

These are simple examples but this is where I am confused. I just do not see how one can have abduction without using deductive arguments in the process when we are dealing with philosophical arguments versus scientific experiments. Am I just utterly missing the point, confused, ...?

Thanks,

Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Lewis [mailto:gordonlewis@viawest.net]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:47 PM
To: iulvr@myexcel.com
Subject: Re: abduction question


Dear Matt,
Start with three worldview hypotheses: naturalism, pantheism and theism.
Ask which is true? That is, which best meets the criteria of truth? Which without contradiction can account for the existence of anything it all, its order, persons and morality.
Which can coherently account for the relevant historical phenomena from the first century concerning Jesus-- fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, his character, claims, works, teaching and supremely the empty tomb and the appearances that came to an abrupt stop?
Which of the three hypotheses coherently accounts for the phenomena surrounding the Bible? Its historical accuracy, unity, realism and power to change lives?
I am sorry the textbook was so hung up on quantitative probabilities, except for the unjustified claim at the bottom of page 533.
Think of how a case is settled in court. There are 3 suspects. Which is guilty of the murder? Determine which meets all the clues best. One has a gun but was not in proximity and has no motive. The second was in the area and has a motive but not the gun that did it. The third suspect has the gun, the motive and was seen in the area at the time of the murder. So the jury decides suspect 3 provides the most coherent account of all the lines of relevant evidence, votes guilty and is alble to sleep at night.
This is also the method used in solving murder mysteries and other crimes. Its also the method used in determining the most coherent interpretation of historical events. Test several interpretations by their coherence, that is their logical non-contradiction, their factual adequacy and their inner authenticity or viability.Did you not receive my handout on criteria of truth with the outline on the back?
GL