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

Introduction
This paper explores the role of abductive thinking and reasoning in the everyday life of
families, and how insights into this inference model might affect home economics philosophy
and practice. As a caveat, although both abductive reasoning and intuition are forms of
cognitive economy (Wong, 2006, p. 1), they are not the same thing. Abduction (i.e., best guess
given what is known in the context) is a logical explanation, though an unassured one, for some
very curious or surprising (anomalous) observation (Kolko, 2010; McKeever, 2008; Patokorpi,
2006). The reaction to a surprising anomaly is one factor that distinguishes abduction from
intuition. Second, although intuition is an integral part of everyday life and everyday intelligence
(Cappon, 1993), it is not a form of reasoning as is abduction. Rather, an intuition is a compelling
feeling people have (Pust, 2012), something they know or consider likely, but a feeling arrived at
without an reasoning process (Pierce, 1868).
Third, Pierce, the father of abductive reasoning, asserted that everything we know is
determined by something we previously knew. He claimed, We have no power of Intuition
(1868, p. 141). By this he meant that intuitions are not best guesses based on previous
knowledge, as are abductions; rather, intuitions are inner convictions, hunches, gut feelings, a 6th
sense about something without evidence or knowledge (Wong, 2006). Intuitions are random
flashes or sudden realizations, not a process of inference, much less one based on some given
evidence (Timothy, 2004). In sharp contrast, abductive reasoning follows from being directly
confronted with evidence or knowledge of something. It is an inference, a faculty of knowledge,
complete in that inference and deduction usually follow (Patokorpi, 2006).
Caveat aside, abductive reasoning matters for home economics because it is frequently
employed in everyday reasoning (Douven, 2011, p.4). In fact, the bulk of human knowledge in
everyday life is based on abductive thinking (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 79). Sometimes peoples use
of abductive thinking is obvious and explicit and sometimes is it so routine and automatic that it
easily goes unnoticed. In either case, after observing something, people come up with an
interpretation off the situation (a conclusion) that best explains what has been seen. Abductive
thinking is most commonly called Inference to the Best Explanation (Douven, 2011; Pierce,
1878). It is in sharp contrast to the familiar deductive and inductive logic.
People fall back on abductive thinking when there are multiple explanations for a
surprising, strange or confounding event they encounter, but the best they can do is guess at what
is going on. They end up making weak inferences, weak because they cannot be sure they believe
in the truth of their explanation - their guess - yet they have to conclude something so they can
make sense of what they are seeing (Chaudhri, 2012). Patokorpi explained that the method of
reasoning used by Sherlock Holmes is abduction (2006, p. 71). Other common examples of
abductive reasoning are lawyers abducing who likely committed a crime and doctors making a
medical diagnosis on an unconscious patient (McKeever, 2008).
A defining characteristic of abductive thinking is that the conclusions drawn do not
follow logically from the assumptions (premises) about the situation (Douven, 2011); they are
just the best explanation at hand. Indeed, abductive thinking has been described as (a) informed
guessing, (b) taking your best shot, (c) best guess leaps, (d) the logic of what might be, and (e)
offering the best explanation, given what is known and the context (Kolko, 2010; McKeever,
2008; Patokorpi, 2006). You think about a confounding situation, draw a conclusion, and that is
what you come away believing (Douven, 2011, p. 2). It is the best thing you can come up with
at the time.
To illustrate, You happen to know that Tim and Harry have recently had a terrible row
that ended their friendship. Now someone tells you that she just saw Tim and Harry jogging
together. The best explanation for this that you can think of is that they made up. You conclude
they are friends again. ...What leads you to this conclusion ... is precisely the fact that Tim and
Harrys being friends again would, if true, best explain the fact that they have just been seen
jogging together (Douvet, 2011, pp.1-2). Douvet explained that you are able to infer they are
friends again because abductive logic allows your conclusions to go beyond what is suggested by
the premises.
Gibbs (in press) placed abductive thinking in a larger context, drawing on its
psychological aspect (see Patokorpi, 2006). Gibbs explained that people go about their everyday
life until such a time when they become aware of a discontinuity in the harmony of their way of
being. This harmony is disrupted or ruptured by an observation that what they see does not match
the reality of what they have come to know (per above example, seeing Tim and Harry together
after a huge breakdown in friendship). Worse, people cannot find adequate meaning to resolve
the discontinuity that disturbed their previous tranquillity. In these surprising, strange or
inexplicable situations, people can resort to abductive thinking, whereby they seek to find the
best way of understanding or reframing their reality in order to regain balance and harmony (i.e.,
Tim and Harry must be friends again, despite everything to the contrary).
In addition to bringing some semblance of reality back into balance, abductive reasoning
can also lead to giant leaps in thinking, to breakthrough ideas. Abductive thinking involves leaps
of imagination and visualization that scarcely seem warranted by the mere observations
promoting the abduction, with Einsteins thought experiments about space and time cited as a
powerful example (McKeever, 2008). This form of reasoning [also] conveys the manner in
which people reason when making discoveries in the sense of coming up with new ideas....
[Their conclusion] might open up a new perspective into things even when there is nothing out of
the ordinary about [the facts or observations] (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 73). In the previous example,
it was not ordinary to see two people jogging together when their friendship was over. The
following quote from Wolf (2004) illustrates an instance of a breakthrough idea.
Here is an example of an abductive argument given by Aristotle: The world must
be spherical in shape. For the night sky looks different in the northern and
southern regions, and this would be so if the earth were spherical. - Aristotle,
Physics. To put this argument in standard form, we might interpret it as follows:
(1) The night sky looks different in the northern and southern regions. (2) The best
explanation for this fact is that the earth is round. (3) Therefore (probably) the
earth is spherical in shape. ...Aristotle never explicitly says that the spherical
earth hypothesis is the best explanation for his observations. ... Of course we
know that the conclusion is true. But looking back, we might regard Aristotles
inference as a shrewd and daring guess. (Wolf, 2004, p. 3)
Absence of Abductive Reasoning in Home Economics
This section addresses the absence of abductive reasoning in home economics and why
this lacuna matters. Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations
and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set [of observations]. Abductive
reasoning yields the kind of daily decision making that does its best with the information at hand,
which is often incomplete. ... Abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness,
either in evidence, or in explanation, or both. ...[People] make their best guesses based on what
they know (McKeever, 2008, p. 2, emphasis added).
Not surprisingly, given its importance in daily decision making, abduction is a central
element of everyday thought (Douven, 2011; Patokorpi, 2006). Indeed, home economics has had
an abiding concern for everyday life (McGregor, 2012; Tuomi-Grhn, 2008) but not for
abductive thinking. To the contrary, it has long valued deductive reasoning, evident in its
embracement of the scientific, empirical, technical approach to practice, values reasoning and
critical thinking. Those within the field who are drawn to other ways of knowing and thinking,
including interpretive and critical science approaches, will also be familiar with inductive
reasoning.
To explain, deductive logic is causal and linear in nature and is used for scientific,
technical reasoning while inductive logic can either (a) help discern how people are making sense
of their world (interpretive) or (b) persuade or lead people to new insights, emancipation and
liberation by revealing power relationships (critical). The home economics profession has not
explicitly engaged with abductive reasoning in its body of knowledge, despite its focus on the
daily life of individuals and families, and one would think the day-to-day reasoning process,
much aligned with abductive thinking - best guesses.
This paper begins to address this lacuna in our philosophical foundation. It follows that
an exploration of abductive reasoning will help home economists better understand everyday life
as well as give us some valuable hints for practice, especially our philosophy of practice. The
balance of the paper focuses on expounding upon the idea of abductive reasoning with examples
of abductive thinking, couched within family life, shared towards the end of the paper.
Conceptual Clarification
Deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning are the three main forms of logic used by
humans, as set out by Aristotle (Pierce, 1878). For the sake of conceptual clarity, deduce is Latin
deducere, to lead down. It refers to drawing a conclusion from something already known. Induce
is Latin inducere, to lead into by persuasion or influence. Abduce is Latin abducere, to lead
away, to draw or take away from (Harper, 2014) (see Figure 1).
 In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for
the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be
false.... [T]he truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed. Conversely, in an
inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it
would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. ...[T[he premises provide good enough reasons to
believe the conclusion is true (IEP Staff, n.d., p.1, emphasis added). In an abductive argument,
people draw a [best guess] conclusion from an array of seemingly disparate and unconnected
facts and observations (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 71).
In more detail, a deductive argument claims that if its premises are true, its conclusion
must be true. An inductive argument claims that if its premises are true, its conclusion is
probably true. The conclusion of an abductive argument is merely the best explanation we know
of. It is not as secure as the conclusion of a sound deductive argument. It is not necessarily even
probable, as is the conclusion of a strong inductive argument; but it is the best people can do
given their ability to take away from (abduce) the facts and observations at hand (Muehlhauser,
2009).
There are two enduring, textbook illustrations of abductive thinking and logic, the wet
lawn and the bag of beans, each based on a known rule. First, it is a known rule that if it rains the
grass is wet; so, to explain the fact that the grass is wet, one infers (guesses) that it has rained
(knowing there are many other reasons grass can be wet, e.g., sprinklers, floods). Second, it is a
known rule that all of the beans in the bag are white; so, to explain the fact that the beans are
white, one infers (guesses) that the beans are from this bag, knowing the beans could have come
from somewhere else (Patokorpi, 2006).
Psychological and Logical Aspects of Abduction
 As noted earlier, abduction has both a psychological (synthetic) and logical (analytic)
dimension closely intertwined (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 73). Gell (1998) drew on Pierces (1878)
concept of synthetic inference (as opposed to analytic inference) to explain that when people face
very strange, confounding circumstances, they assume that things can be explained by some rule,
thereby enabling them to suppose that that rule explains what is going on (i.e., they abduce).
Citing Roesler, Patokorpi (2006) shared the following example. Someone was surprised when
she observed a round, orange-coloured and porous object. She reasoned that if this object was an
orange (a known rule to her), it would make sense to her and thus cease to be surprising. Ergo,
she abduced (took away) from her observations that the object was an orange (a plausible
explanation given the facts at hand).
Using synthetic inference, this person reduced the psychological angst created by finding
something that did not match what they had known before (i.e., the previous example of the
joggers who were thought to be no longer friends). In these instances, people can have degrees of
trust in the manner used to infer their conclusion, knowing that their belief tends to fix itself
under the influence of inquiry (Pierce, 1878, p. 719). In some instances, abduction does require
backing up by deduction... and induction... to make [sure] the guesses are not just plausible but
accurate as well (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 71). Many abductions are rejected or heavily modified by
subsequent abductions. It is likely that you would want to follow up to see if Tim and Harry had
indeed made up, or if they just happened to be seen on the same jogging path at the same time.
Its Human Nature to Abduce
Not surprisingly then, abductive thinking is more intuitive than deduction or induction
(Gell,1998). Intuitive means instinctual, having a natural tendency for something. Charles
Sanders Pierce (1878), the first to write about abductive logic (see also Hartshorne and Weiss,
1960) concurred, explaining that people are able to successfully guess (use abductive reasoning)
because humans minds have a natural affinity for doing so. It is not blind luck; rather, abductive
thinking is guided by lumen naturale, a term from Mediaeval times meaning humans are quite
capable of reasoning without divine revelation. Pierce (1908) further believed that the success of
peoples guesses far exceeds that of random luck because humans have a natural instinct to
successfully guess (abduce) when not hampered by the formal laws of deductive and inductive
logic.
Abduction guesses a new or outside idea so as to account in a plausible, instinctive,
economical way for a surprising or very complicated phenomenon (Wikipedia Encyclopedia,
2014, p. 5, emphasis added). Not only must the guess be the most sufficient and plausible
explanation, it must also be the most economical explanation for what is going on. Simplification
and economy both call for that leap of abduction. As well, the abductive process uses pragmatic
logic; insecure guesses (weak inferences) must at least be conceivable, capable of being
imagined, of being possible.
The abductive process can also be very creative, intuitive, even revolutionary (McKeever,
2008). Its logic is a powerful path for the creation of new knowledge and insights. The
abductive insight comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although extremely fallible
insight. It is true that the different elements of the [insight] were in our minds before; but it is the
idea of putting together what we had never before dreamed of putting together which flashes the
new suggestion before our contemplation (Pierce Edition Project, 1988, p. 227, emphasis
added).
Sensemaking and Following Clues
 Taking an interesting stance, Kolko (2010) proposed that people use abductive reasoning
to make sense of their complex life (see also Patokorpi, 2006). Sensemaking involves an internal,
personal process whereby people try to understand connections between people, places and
events. When sensemaking, it is less important to be accurate and more important to give
some abstract and tangible form to the ideas, thoughts and reflections [emergent from the
connections] (Kolko, 2010, p. 18, emphasis added). Abductive thinking lets people propose C
as a best guess as to why B is occurring, even though C was not part of their original observations
of the phenomenon. People are better able to make sense of the strange and confounding things
they encounter if they can resort to outside the box, creative insights enabling them to make an
informed guess about what is going on.
Along a similar line of thinking about informed guessing, Patokorpi (2006) proposed that
abductive thinking is essentially a matter of finding and following clues. However, ... a clue
alone is not enough. A clue merely leads the reasoner to something that he or she already knows.
Abduction, in contrast to the mere following of clues, aims at eliciting new knowledge (p. 80).
Much like Kolkos (2010) notion of sensemaking, by actively paying attention to signs and clues
that are open for all to see, abductive thinkers give meaning to these things, producing new
knowledge. Knowledge based on abduction can be communicated to others because it is based on
visible signs and clues. It is the power of guessing that reveals the knowledge. Furthermore,
people differ in their ability to detect clues and to abduce (take away) new insights or
conclusions. And, people differ in their previous knowledge of the world, in their experiences
and their logical acumen. These personal differences explain why people exposed to the same
strange and confounding circumstances may indeed come up with different conclusions (guesses
about what is going on) (Ginzburg as cited in Patokorpi, 2006).
Forms of Abductive Reasoning Applied to Families
To aid in employing this logic in practice, it is helpful to know that there are four forms
of abductive inference: selective, creative, non-sentential, and manipulative (see Figure 2)
(Magnani, 1998; Magnani, Piazza, & Dossena, 2002; see also Patokorpi, 2006). Some examples
of abductive thinking, couched within family life, are now shared.
 First, when using selective abduction, people select the rule that is already in their mind.
To illustrate, if the daughter in a family comes into the kitchen and sees a tuna fish sandwich
beside an open can of tuna, and her mother standing there, she can guess the tuna came from the
open can and that her Mom made the sandwich. Eco (1983) called this quasi-automatic selective
abduction; the daughter selected a rule that was already a part of the furniture of her reasoning
mind (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 78); her Mom has made tuna sandwiches for her before.
Second, what if the Mom was surprised and shocked to see her daughter emerge from her
bedroom wearing an outrageous outfit, that is totally out of character? In this case, the Mom may
not have a rule in her head for this strange situation in her family life, so she has to create a new
one to explain what is going on in her daughters head, called creative abduction. This form of
abduction involves the creation of new causal relations, radical new connections to explain
something, likely involving dropping closely-held assumptions (note that Magnani et al. (2002)
likened creative abduction to doctors abducing a new disease from a set of surprising symptoms,
with HIV AIDS as the example).
Third, it is a given that abductive reasoning relies on observations as well as facts. These
observations involve all five senses, which provide clues that can be used when explaining what
is going on. Rather than expressing their reasoning using sentences (verbal expressions), some
people draw on mental images or pictures (called non-sentential abduction because they are not
verbally representing their thought processes in sentences). So, in this family scenario with the
wayward teenager, the Mom may find a broken chair in the living room. When trying to make an
informed or educated guess about what happened to the chair, she now pictures in her mind the
wild party that her daughter must have held. She knows full well that it could be broken for other
reasons, but the daughters previous shocking behaviour leads to the Moms best guess as to
what went on and the mental image of a wild party came to mind.
The final form of abductive thinking is manipulative reasoning. Mathematics teachers
will be familiar with using manipulatives to help students learn geometry. Students hold and
manipulate actual objects in their hands, using the tacit knowledge forming in their heads to
abduce (take away) geometrical principles (Magnani et al., 2002). Back to our family example.
Perhaps the Mom could deal with her daughters never-before-expressed fashion sense (likely a
means for expressing her emergent identity), by taking her daughter shopping so she can try on
different clothes and styles, and explain why she likes or dislikes each one. The Mom would be
taking an educated guess that this form of manipulative abduction might help her daughter
express why she is dressing the way she is now and maybe this can lead to a conversation about
the larger issue of teen identity.
Some Implications for Home Economics
Not perfect examples for sure, but they serve to illustrate how pervasive abductive
reasoning seems to be within family life and why it merits further consideration by the home
economics profession. Abductive educated guessing is the mainstay of everyday thought
processes (Patokorpi, 2006, p. 79, emphasis added). Educated guessing simplifies the
complexity of daily reality, making it intelligible to us (p. 73). It helps people make sense of a
very convoluted, complex world. Peoples knowledge of the world is provisional, meaning it can
change in the future. Being able to cope with surprising, pressing situations, which are not
immediately conducive to deductive, even inductive logic, necessitates another form of thinking,
abductive thinking.
Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the
information at hand, which often is incomplete (McKeever, 2008, p. 2). Some home
economists may have to overcome their resistance to solutions that are presented as magical
insights rather than as the results of thoughtful, well articulated processes (Clakre, 2013). We
may have to trust individuals and families as they take their best stab at compelling issues (e.g.,
family, personal, social, economic, political, environmental, faith, cultural). Abductive thinking
is a form of decision making on the run, doing the best they can with what they have at hand,
given the circumstances and what they know.
The pragmatic logic behind abductive thinking holds promise for respecting that families
are making do on a daily basis. With imperfect information, families respond to clues (maybe
miss clues that others can see) and try to figure out what is going on and then what to do.
Knowing that home economists are familiar with deductive and inductive logic, which are
predicated on hypotheses, we can now suggest that hypothesis takes on a whole new meaning.
Hypothetically, this is what might be going on, and that is sometimes all they have - a best
guess. In some cases, their best guesses actually lead to powerful new insights, in addition to
simply solving an immediate problem (like the Mom abducing that her daughter is experiencing
hormonal changes as she becomes a woman, rather than deducing she is somehow now on the
wrong track in life). Sudden flashes of insights that emerge from abductive thinking shape
everyday life (Patokorpi, 2006).
This form of logic and inference is a legitimate aspect of daily family life and warrants
further profession-wide dialogue. For this reason alone, home economists should pay more
attention to abductive reasoning. After all, humans have a natural instinct to successfully guess
(abduce) what is going on in their lives. This natural inclination behoves home economists to
engage with abductive reasoning so we can respect and support the role that educated guesses
might play as individuals and families deal with the trials and tribulations of daily life.
For instance, we need to explore how pervasive abductive reasoning is in the daily life of
individuals and families. Does this form of inference serve them well or just lead to, what Clakre
(2013) called, magical insights, seemingly not warranted by what has been observed? Are
educated or best guesses alright in some instances? Douven (2011) echoed this concern, noting
that [e]ven if it is true that we routinely rely on abductive reasoning [in everyday life], it may
still be asked whether this practice is rational (p. 11). And, we are reminded that home
economists have long lobbied for families to engage in critical thinking, values reasoning and
practical perennial problem solving, all predicated on deductive and inductive logic, not
abductive logic. Is it logical for us to give credence to the idea that individuals and families
spend a lot of time just making best guesses? Is their well-being and quality of life somehow
compromised by this form of inference?
Other queries come to mind. What are the implications to practice given that people differ
on their abductive acumen? Different families will take away different things from similar
circumstances. Also, how big a role does abductive reasoning play when individuals and families
engage in sensemaking, finding meaning in their daily life - making sense of it with imperfect
information? How should we (if at all) help families find and follow clues (and which ones) that
can lead to new knowledge and insights about their lived experiences? What is the best
combination of selective, creative, non-sentential, and manipulative abductions for a given
family or even for families in general? Given that there is widespread agreement that people
frequently rely on abductive reasoning, this paper invited home economists to engage with the
idea (Douven, 2011, p. 11).
On a closing note, home economics professionals have the opportunity to trust their own
instinctual, educated guesses about what is best for individuals and families, given what is known
at the time. Using these natural instincts, these educated guesses, home economists can make
conceptual leaps that may lead to revised and forward-looking practice. We should not
underestimate the intuitive power of quantum leaps in thinking that scarcely seem warranted by
the mere observations we are making. These sudden flashes in insights could become the
mainstay of our practice. Given the apparent prevalence of abductive thinking in families and its
potential benefits for the profession, we should rethink how our curricula, research, pedagogy,
practice, and philosophy might have to change to reflect the idea of abductive reasoning.

References
Cappon, D. (1993). The anatomy of intuition. Psychology Today, 26(3), 40-45.
Chaudhri, V. (2012). Abductive reasoning: Explanation and diagnosis. Retrieved from Stanford
University website, http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs227/Lectures/lec12.pdf
Clakre, I. (2013, May 30). Comments on abductive thinking, sensemaking and the meaning of
life [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
http://bouncingideas.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/abductive-thinking-sensemaking-and-the
-meaning-of-life/
Douven, I. (2011). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
Eco, U. (1983). Horns, hooves, insteps. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of three (pp.
199-219). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
Gibbs, P. (in press). Towards a transdisciplinary methodology for professional practice featuring
abductive reasoning. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), A transdisciplinary study of higher education and
professional identity (pages forthcoming). New York, NY: Springer.
Harper, D. (2014). Online etymology dictionary. Lancaster, PA: Self-published. Retrieved from
http://www.etymonline.com/
Hartshorne, C., & Weiss, P. (Eds.). (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pirece.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
IEP Staff. (n.d.). Deductive and inductive arguments. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. MITs
Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28.
Magnani, L. (1998). Abduction and hypothesis: Withdrawal in science. Paper presented at the
Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Boston, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieMagn.htm
Magnani, L., Piazza, M., & Dossena, R. (2002). The extra-theoretical dimension of discovery.
Extracting knowledge by abduction. In S. Lange, K. Satoh, & C. Smith (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Discovery Science (pp. 441-448).
Lubeck, Germany: Springer.
McGregor, S. L. T. (2012). Everyday life: A home economics concept. Kappa Omicron Nu
FORUM, 19(1), http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/19-1/mcgregor.html
McKeever, R. (2008). Tip sheet: Deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. Retrieved from
Butte College website, http://butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html
Muehlhauser, L. (2009, November 19). Intro to logic: Abductive reasoning [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3703
Patokorpi, E. (2006). Role of abductive reasoning in digital interaction ( Doctoral thesis, bo
Akademi University, Finland). Retrieved from
http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/patokorpi/abduction.pdf
Pierce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy,
2, 140-157.
Pierce, C. S. (1878). Illustrations of the logic of science. The Popular Science Monthly, 12
(March), 1-719.
Pierce, C. S. (1908). A neglected argument for the Reality of God. Hibbert Journal, 7, 90-112.
Pierce Edition Project (Eds.). (1988). The essential Pierce: Selected philosophical writings,
1893-1913, by Charles S. Pierce. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Pust, J. (2012). Intuition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/
Timothy. (2004, December 18). Re: Is abductive reasoning intuition? [Web log comment].
Retrieved from
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/is-abductive-reasoning-intuition-38427.html
Tuomi-Grhn, T. (Ed.). (2008). Reinventing art of everyday making. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter
 Lang.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (2014, February 15). Abductive reasoning. San Francisco, CA:
Wikipedia Foundation. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
Wolf, C. (2004). Part III: Inductive and abductive arguments. Retrieved from Iowa State
University website, http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jwcwolf/Papers/Induction.html
Wong, P. T. P. (2006, June). Intuition: The best kept secret for survival and success [Presidents
column]. Positive Living E-Zine,
http://www.meaning.ca/archives/presidents_columns/pres_col_jun_2006_intuition.htm