A Comparison between Inductivism PDF

Preview

Summary

A Comparison between Inductivism...

Description

A Comparison between Inductivism, Deductivism and Falsification. According to inductivism, scientific knowledge is derived from facts and these facts derive from observation and experience. Deductivism furthered and refined inductivism, whereas falsification responded with a scientific alternative to these approaches. In the present essay, induction, deduction and falsification will be discussed critically. Induction uses particular examples which have been observed and experienced to come to a general conclusion. For example: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Iron expands when heated. Copper expands when heated. Tin expands when heated. Thus, all metals expand when heated.

The first three particular statements are claims based on observation. It has been observed that iron, copper and tin all expand when heated. Therefore, these statements are used as specific examples in a reasoning process that is not strictly logical, to come to a general conclusion that all metals expand when heated. This is a generalisation. The more examples used (for example, steel and titanium also expand when heated) the more probable and valid the general conclusion. But, the specific examples depend on our finite experience due to our limited knowledge. Another problem with induction is that it allows for no exceptions. In the generalisation: all metals expand when heated, the metal aluminium melts when heated, and is thus an exception to the general conclusion. Also, each observation must be repeated under a wide variety of circumstances in order to be valid. But how can one observe phenomena in the sub-atomic level? In induction, the observable facts are used to acquire a general statement. This general statement can be used as the first premise of deduction, which can then supplement the inductive argument by following logical steps to make predictions and explanations. For example: 1. All metals expand when heated. – The general conclusion to the inductive argument above. 2. The pipes in this building are made of metal. 3. The pipes in this building expand when they are heated. – The specific prediction based on the general conclusion. In deduction, a general or universal statement which has been observed is used in a reasoning process to reach a valid and true particular example. For example: 1. All humans are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human. 3. Therefore Socrates is human. This particular example is valid because it follows logical steps: in statement 2, the subject, Socrates, is human. Since in statement 1 all humans are mortal, the next logical step would be to presume that Socrates (who is a human), is thus mortal. It is also true because the premises are true. Not all deductive reasoning is based on a universal truth. Some conclusions are logically valid, but not necessarily true. For example: 1. Many books on philosophy are boring.

A Comparison between Inductivism, Deductivism and Falsification. 2. This book is on philosophy. 3. This book is thus boring. The conclusion that this philosophy book is boring is logically valid, but not necessarily true, as some people enjoy reading philosophy books. Thus the first universal statement is a stereotype. In deduction, the first premise expresses a universal law and theory about the species (humans are mortal), the second applies the rule to the species (Socrates is human), and the third provides an explanation or prediction (Socrates is mortal). Falsification is an alternative to induction. It originated with Karl Popper, who believed that Freud’s and Marx’s theories could never be proven wrong because they were sufficiently flexible and general enough to accommodate every phenomenon. Thus the phenomena were compatible with their theories. Popper believed that Einstein’s scientific theories were falsifiable, because they were specific and testable predictions which were able to rule out a number of observable states. Thus science progresses by trial and error. The more likely a theory is to be proven wrong, the more scientific it is. For example, horoscopes are general. They cannot be proven wrong because they are flexible enough to accommodate every person’s life. For example, the statement: “This month is your lucky month” is so general that any person could apply any aspect of their life to it. Thus falsification is good criteria for scientific theories, as it allows for the statements to be precise, clearly stated and claim as much as possible. A hypothesis must be falsifiable before it forms a part of science. For example: It never rains on Wednesdays. This statement is can be falsified by observing rain on a Wednesday, thus the statement is falsifiable. The more falsifiable scientific theories are the more progress there is as we learn from our errors. Scientific knowledge progresses from trial and error through the development of inductivism to deductivism, and falsification proving hypotheses to be scientific....