Reasoning is used all the time, humans use evidence of someone, something or personal experiences through time to reach a logical conclusion and accept it. In science, there are two methods of reasoning in which scientist arrive with a conclusion about a specific topic and it is by induction and deduction. In the modern scientific method induction seems to be a key element, based from specific observations and experiments. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is used in the scientific method to test hypotheses and theories in which the conclusion must be logically valid. Each of these methods of reasoning make an important contribution to our understanding of the world. This essay explains the processes of induction and deduction and their role in the modern scientific method, as well as ‘Problems of induction along with Popper’s ‘solution’ to induction through falsification will be discussed due to his rejection of inductive reasoning in the scientific method. Although these two methods of reasoning conduct different approaches in the scientific method, both finalise in the deve...
(2) Kitcher, Philip, and Wesley C. Salmon, eds. Scientific Explanation. Vol. 13, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
For the purpose of this paper I will refine the problem of induction to enumerative cases of induction. I shall explore whether reliabilism is a successful theory of knowledge, and propose that it is a viable solution to the problem of induction proposed by David Hume, but requires ad hoc amendments in attempt to satisfy the New Riddle of Induction put forth by Nelson Goodman.
Pseudo sciences resting on the priori method carefully stated their information and follow logical rules to arrive at acceptable conclusions. In this approach, the conclusions are derived by using logic through some a set of facts and/or declarations. The a priori method is more intellectual and respected approach compared with other methods such as tenacity and authority. Furthermore, is t has shown to be quite strong in the hands of that mathematicians and philosophers. Nevertheless, accurate scientific conclusions depend on both the reasoning and the exactness of the premises. This is where it comes the use of the scientific method; science meets reasoning and empiricism, using logical reasoning, but by means of a careful methodology, (Graziano & Raulin, 2010; Rosnow & Rosenthal,
In the AOK of the natural sciences, having a skeptical approach can be quite beneficial. The natural sciences utilizes extensive methods in which they come to conclusions about the information presented, based on the various experiment...
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the wa...
The overarching or oversimplification of these theories which seem to many to be a strength, for Popper was actually a weakness. With theories such as these anything could be interpreted into them (or the theory could be interpreted into the evidece). Thus, Popper came to the conclusion that unless a theory can be proven wrong, it cannot be labeled as scientific. He also claimed that risky predictions should be made and be testable. Also, confirming evidence should not count unless it is an attempt to falsify the theory. Now, Popper's concern the problem of the "logic of science" or the "logical problem of induction." Popper sees induction as having the same basic problem as the overgeneralization principle of the psychological, historic theories, ect. He regards no actual rule of induction ...
In Otto H. Chang’s article “Buddhism and Scientific Methods” he studies the similarities and differences of the two department’s way of investigation a problem/issue, Chang describes the methods and process commonly used in scientific research today as follows:
Firstly, science and the problem of induction will be discussed. Everything we know about the surrounding natural world is obtained through the process of induction. This activity designed to discover information about the natural world in which we live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns has been titled science. Science is systematic entity that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. The process in which information is obtained is called the scientific method. The scientific method is the foundation of all science. If an inquiry is to follow the scientific method it must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It uses the results obtained through observations and/or experiments is used to make generalizations about other instances of what is being tested. Consider the theories of evolution and natural selection: all life on Earth has a common ancestor but in order to produce the large amount of organism fluctuations, certain organisms had to evolve into new species. These theories are established by generalization of instances. Scientific theories are merely just hypotheses. They are created so ...
Also, presuppositions, which are basic for the starting of science, are at ultimate instance based on empirical knowledge (do not offer a scientific justification). There can be no science without scientists making various very general suppositions that, because of their special nature, could be called presuppositions. One shall single out the two main presuppositions. First, the principles of logic such as modus ponens (4). The truth of these principles, however, cannot be proved based on arguments that only have premises
The following essay will discuss falsification, as discussed by Karl Popper, as well has his account of the scientific method. The idea whether any scientific theory can truly be falsified will also be approached by looking at the problems presented by Popper’s theory of falsification, and the impact this has on the scientific method and science as a whole.
The Deductive-Nomological (D-N) Model gives an account of explanation through its basic form, the Covering Law Model. The D-N Model asks the basic question “What is a scientific explanation?” The aim of this paper is to answer that question and further develop the definition of an explanation by problematizing the D-N Model’s account of explanation, providing a solution to one of those problems, and then further problematizing that solution. By examining the details of an example that the D-N Model explains well, we can see why this model was popular in the first place before describing two of its major problems. Then, by looking at Wesley Salmon’s account of scientific explanation, we can see just how problematic the flaws in the D-N Model
With his method of radical skepticism, Descartes escaped a chain of assumptions built on dogmatic “results” and laid a new foundation for science rooted in observation and experiment. Dissatisfied with the qualitative evidence of Aristotelian syllogisms, Descartes sought to avoid building on assumptions by promoting criticism and rigorous review of hypothesis, which could them be pieced together mathematically to develop scientific theory. While Descartes left a framework that continues to drive modern science, some of his most fervent beliefs presented in Discourse on the Method have been abandoned to make way for a pragmatic view of sciences role in explanation.
The original scientific method was established during the Renaissance and is based upon induction. Induction is defined by philosopher J.S Mills as “consists in inferring from a finite number of observed instances of a phenomenon, that it occurs in all instances of a certain class that resemble the observed instances in certain ways.” Meaning this view of the scientific method begins with the particular observation of natural phenomena, and from this observation, a general principle is logically inferred. For example, after only seeing white dogs in my lifetime I induced all dogs are white. As such inductive reasoning is the inference of a universal law from a finite list of singular instances. Inductive reasoning is based upon three conditions,
Perhaps the greatest endeavor that owes itself to induction is science. Its claim to be in the pursuit of truth, of empirical knowledge, is entirely dependent on the validity of inductive reasoning. As such, science has developed ways and means to guarantee the validity of its conclusions; this includes randomizing samples, choosing appropriately sized sample groups and the use of statistics to calculate whether something is merely possible or is probable. Each of these methods (and there may be more) needs to be examined.