A2: Creative Abductive Inference and its Role for Inductive Metaphysics (IM)

本项目在第一阶段继续A2项目的工作，基于一系列形而上学问题和B项目中的案例研究，探索作为归纳形而上学(IM)方法的创造性溯因(CA)。该项目由两部分组成。在第一部分，A2.1，沿着法理上的必然性和可能性的概念来检验形而上学中的溯因方法论的影响，这两个概念在形而上学解释的几乎所有领域中都发挥着作用。A2.1调查这些概念或其变体(例如，法律似然性与基本法律地位、物理必然性与形而上学必然性)本身是否可以通过符合科学推理的合理性标准、统一性和独立可测试性的溯因推理来证明其合理性，以及在多大程度上能够证明这些概念或变体是合理的，以便产生适合自然科学实践的必然性概念。对基于自由假设的法理可能性的独立证据的作用给予了特别的关注。最后，我们将系统地研究IM中用于溯因推理的不同类型的解释；后一工作包将与A2.2一起进行。在第二部分A2.2中，将研究如何将在科学中找到有效应用但我们的项目在第一阶段尚未探索的溯因方法应用于形而上学。特别是，将严格审查作为诱拐企业设想的形而上学中的模型建立所能发挥的作用。其次，我们将考察形而上学理论化中使用溯因美德，如简单性，通过使它们更健壮和更不容易出错，来帮助改进形而上学理论的程度。第三，根据我们前面的调查，结合A2.1，我们将回答溯因推断的形而上学理论如何解释的问题。特别是，我们探索是否以及如何在IM中解释扎根的解释。

This project continues the work of project A2 in the first phase, exploring creative abduction (CA) as method of inductive metaphysics (IM) based on a selection of metaphysical questions and on the case studies in the B projects. The project consists of two parts. In the first part, A2.1, the reach of the abductive methodology in metaphysics is tested along the lines of the concepts of nomological necessity and possibility, that play a role in almost all domains of metaphysical explanations. A2.1 investigates whether and to what extent these notions or variants of them (e.g., lawlikeness versus fundamental lawhood, physical versus metaphysical necessity) can themselves be justified by abductive inferences meeting the rationality criteria for scientific abduction, unification and independent testability, in order to yield a notion of necessity that fits the practice of natural science. Particular attention is given to the role of independent evidence for nomological possibility based on assumptions about freedom. Finally, we will systematically investigate the different kinds of explanation employed in the abductive inferences in IM; this latter work package will be undertaken together with A2.2.In the second part, A2.2, it will be investigated how abductive methods that find fruitful application in the sciences but that have not yet been explored by our project in the first phase can be applied to metaphysics. In particular, the role model-building can play in metaphysics conceived as an abductive enterprise will be critically examined. Second, we will examine the extent to which using abductive virtues such as simplicity in metaphysical theorizing can help to improve metaphysical theories by making them more robust and less error-fragile. Third, in light of our foregoing inquiry and together with A2.1, we will answer the question of how abductively inferred metaphysical theories explain. In particular, we explore whether and how grounding explanations can be accounted for within IM.