Philosophy assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Philosophy Essay...

Description

Reflections on Scientific Method: Falsificationism and Inductivism This essay seeks to discuss the differing variants of induction through the analysis of inductive reasoning and the falsificationist view of inductivism. The first method to be discussed is inductivism, which is ultimately drawing general conclusions from observations of natural phenomena. Falsificationism however contradicts this way of scientific reasoning and believes in falsifying hypotheses rather than verifying them. Due to the notable variation in these two ways of scientific reasoning, falsificationist propose that induction does not contain the creativity required to disprove a viable hypothesis, this however has the opportunity to be addressed. While both models of scientific methods can be viewed as rational, providing reliable and logical claims about the world (Nickerson. RS, 1998), there is a variation between the two methods and my personal stance on the matter is that falsificationism is the more reliable and rational way of scientific reasoning. Induction is a way of scientific reasoning that “from observation one logically arrives at general principles” (SCIE1100 Lecture Notes 2021, pg. 134). This is based on the underlying principle “that what occurs frequently does not do so by chance” (SCIE1100 Lecture Notes 2021, pg.135). This ultimately communicates that induction is a way of developing and thinking based off assumptions observed through natural phenomena. For this reason, the scientific method of induction can be viewed as rational to some extent as it is based off observations from real situations which are then formulated using inductive reasoning. While inductivists hold this viewpoint, there are still significant limitations to this way of scientific reasoning. Inductive proof cannot be guaranteed with absolute certainty, and for this reason, laws cannot be established as certain, this is largely due to their assumption that everything in nature is uniform, which is not a justifiable claim. This comes from the idea that even after many observations that support the same hypothesis, it cannot be guaranteed that all aspects of the world have been observed and follow this law, reducing its reliability as a hypothesis. The other challenge related to inductivism was explained by Hume in the 18th century where he discussed that “reasoning cannot be demonstrative” as it “establishes conclusions which cannot be conceived false” (Henderson. L, 2020). Hume then states that this form of reasoning communicates that the future has to conform to the past (Henderson. L, 2020). Assuming the future will conform to the past is an inductive inference as it is a generalisation that what was observed in the past will resemble the future. This ultimately concludes to the fact that inductivism is justified by circular reasoning as an inductive inference is used to justify induction. Alternatively, falsification is another method of scientific reasoning defined as “proposing bold conjectures as laws describing what we see […] and then subjecting these conjectures to […] tests [in] attempts to falsify it” (SCIE1100 Lecture Notes 2021, pg. 150). In other words, this method is based upon proposing laws and then seeking to disprove them. Once all attempts to falsify are rejected, these new laws are viewed as the strongest law and conditionally accepted. This method of scientific reasoning can also be viewed as rational as it is making reliable claims about the phenomena around us, even if it is attempting to disprove them. The key difference though between the two methods of scientific reasoning is that falsificationist are aware of the uncertainty and the limitations of the model and for that reason, are always trying to identify these faults, inductivist however do not attempt to achieve this. This introduces the next challenge as a falsificationist objection to inductivism is that it does not consider the creativity required in order to discover hypotheses. Ultimately, inductivism does not possess the creativity to discover the flaws of their hypotheses as they do not seek to falsify them, like the falsificationist. This can also be described by the term “confirmation bias” which communicates that inductive reasoning seeks only to find evidence that favours the hypotheses (Nickerson. R, 1998). In order

to change this objection from the falsificationist, the problem could be addressed by less naivety. This could be achieved by not necessarily attempting to falsify the entire hypotheses but rather searching further and deeper into the observations they see to extrapolate more evidence. In addition to this, inductivist could approach their way of scientific reasoning with more of an open mind and acceptance of flaws to their scientific conclusions. By applying this, the falsificationist would be in more approval of the inductivist way of reasoning. They will however not be in absolute approval due to the presence of the main difference that the falsificationist still retain the position that all is false or at least provisionally accepted, because of the significance of disproving hypotheses to the falsificationist, this will be the key limitation to the acceptance of inductivism. In my opinion, after studying both methods, I support the falsificationist method of scientific reasoning. This is due to the uncertainty surrounding science and a belief that nothing can ever be entirely correct as there is most likely be an exception to every situation, depending on the extent of investigation. This has already been viewed in hypotheses and laws such as the Ideal Gas Law where further testing under more extreme conditions were conducted and found fault in the theory. By understanding that nothing is ever absolutely certain, you can approach problems knowing they may not be true with an open mind, willing to accept changes. In addition to this, the concept that in order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable communicates that induction cannot provide scientific statements, only if they are attempted to be disproven, thus falsification is the most effective means of scientific reasoning. In summary, I agree with falsificationism when considering both methods of scientific reasoning. The arguments discussed in this essay prove that induction is not a reliable way of producing scientific claims and I am unable to find any arguments that suggest induction is a more effective method of scientific reasoning . This is largely due to inductivism’s lack of creativity to develop a hypothesis further than the proposal and identify the faults in the claim. Furthermore, inductivism’s inability to provide justification that is not circular emphasizes the weakness in this scientific method. Through this analysis, I retain my position that falsificationism is the stronger method of scientific reasoning.

Word count: 981

Reference List

Henderson, Leah, "The Problem of Induction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: . Nickerson RS. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology. 1998;2(2):175-220. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 SCIE1100 Lecture Notes. Brisbane, University of Queensland, 2021....