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

本项目延续了A2项目第一阶段的工作，基于一系列形而上学问题和B项目中的案例研究，探索创造性溯因（CA）作为归纳形而上学（IM）的方法。该项目由两部分组成。在第一部分（A2.1）中，溯因方法论在形而上学中的范围是沿着法理学必然性和可能性概念的路线进行测试的，这些概念在几乎所有的形而上学解释领域中都发挥着作用。A2.1调查这些概念或它们的变体（例如，法律相似性与基本合法性，物理必然性与形而上学必然性）是否以及在多大程度上可以通过符合科学溯因性，统一性和独立可检验性的合理性标准的溯因推理来证明，以产生适合自然科学实践的必然性概念。本文特别关注基于自由假设的法理可能性的独立证据的作用。最后，我们将系统地研究IM中溯因推理所采用的不同类型的解释；后一工作包将与A2.2一起进行。在第二部分（A2.2）中，我们将研究在科学中发现富有成效的应用，但我们在第一阶段的项目尚未探索的溯因方法如何应用于形而上学。特别是，角色榜样的建立可以在形而上学中发挥作用，被认为是一种溯因性的企业，将被批判性地审查。其次，我们将研究在形而上学理论化中使用溯因性美德（如简单性）在多大程度上有助于改进形而上学理论，使它们更健壮，更少出错。第三，根据我们前面的调查，并结合A2.1，我们将回答溯因推理的形而上学理论如何解释的问题。特别是，我们探讨了是否以及如何在IM中解释基础解释。

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.