Abstract The importance of abductive inference has recently been rekindled by ongoing discussions in the epistemology of logic, as advanced by proponents of logical anti-exceptionalism. Some scholars within this framework contend that abductive reasoning is integral to warranting, acquiring knowledge, and revising logical theories. Accordingly, these authors appear to assert that this methodology indirectly accounts for warrant, knowledge acquisition, and the revision of logical principles. Against this backdrop, the primary aim of this article is to argue that the epistemological role of abduction requires reconsideration. Specifically, we contend that abduction is a subordinate epistemic method, one that depends on more traditional epistemic sources.
Matteo Baggio (Tue,) studied this question.