The following essay aims to discuss the issues that someone with a hypothetico-deductive perspective may have with the given extract by exploring and contrasting both the hypothetico-deductive and inductive perspectives. According to the extract from Chalmers’ work above, scientific theories are ‘derived from the facts of experience’ (A. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 1976, p. 1) which is reference to the classical model of the scientific method; one based on inductivism. Popper, however, rejected this method of traditional empiricism and made strong argument(s) against scientific theories and their sole dependence on induction. His own account of the scientific method is commonly known as the ‘hypothetico-deductive method’ (SCIE1000 …show more content…
I also aim to discuss my own personal viewpoint with respect to Chalmers’ work above.
Firstly, I will introduce Chalmers’ claims regarding the scientific method and further analyse their implications. Chalmers’ primary argument refers to the fact that such scientific theories are ‘acquired by observation and experiment’ (SCIE1000 Notes, 2018). This suggests that they are based on the principle or inductivism - when generalisations for a particular phenomenon are extracted from evidence obtained after performing a series of observations and experiments. An example of this is as follows; if every observed koala appears to be grey in colour, one could induce the statement that ‘all koalas are grey in colour’. It is this theory of induction that has received wide criticism solely because any infinite amount of positive evidence in support of the theory does not account for the potential for one piece of negative evidence which would disprove the theory (ie. a brown koala in the example
…show more content…
Chalmers’ ideology is more determined to prove the theory correct, and Popper’s own ideology rejects all other outcomes and instead solely focuses on achieving the one outcome in support of the hypothesis. The obvious bias in the origin of the hypothesis will more than likely produce a misleading data set, which is undeniably less than desirable. In my eyes, the most glaring flaw in the claims of Chalmers is that he makes the fatal mistake of jumping to conclusions and, as a result, prematurely declares hypotheses as truths. This is known as the fallacy of hasty generalisation and is a major dent in the credibility of any claim made. In order to make such an assumption as this, one would have to adopt the conjecture of the uniformity of nature – a theory introduced by Hume (W. Salmon, 1953). This conjecture suggests that by observing a sequence of events that has occurred in the past, and by assuming that the laws of physics will remain unchanged over the given time period; it is reasonable to expect that future events will occur in a similar fashion and thereby produce the same outcome. Contrarily, Popper’s own perspective of the scientific method has a potentially negative implication as his
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science.
6. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.”
However, by introducing a new term “grue”, Goodman says that not all generalizations are necessarily confirmed by their examples. Goodman defines “grue” as follows: “An object is grue if and only if it was first observed before 2020 A.D. and is green, or if it was not first observed before 2020 A.D. and is blue”. As we are in the year of 2014 now, all the evidence we have supports the “grue” hypothesis exactly as much as it supports the “green” hypothesis. Taking the inductive reasoning above, if we can conclude that “all emeralds are green”, it is equally true that we can conclude “all emeralds are grue”. Nevertheless, this will lead to an absurd conclusion that the emeralds we have observed so far are both green and grue, which obviously does not reflect the real case in science because the hypothesis th...
Chalmers has an extensive background in consciousness, issues in the philosophy of the mind and language, metaphysics and epistemology, and
In Douglas’ article, she argues that “non-epistemic values are a required part of the internal aspects of scientific reasoning for cases where inductive risk includes risk of non-epistemic consequences (Douglas, p. 559). She continues on to explain the foundation for the term inductive risk, and how it came about. “Inductive risk, a term first used by Hempel [in 1965, it] is the chance that one will be wrong in accepting (or rejecting) a scientific hypothesis” (Douglas, p. 561). Apparently, traditional philosophers contend the values act as a precursor to scientific arguments. However, Hempel believed that these values should
Longino defines her account of scientific knowledge relative to positivist and wholist accounts. Though many regard positivism as offering an untenable account of science, because "no comparable sweeping and detailed philosophical view has replaced it," Longino believes that it still needs to be reckoned with (L1990, 21). Wholists are significant because they have been the greatest critics of positivism. After presenting these accounts, and explaining the difficulties that Longino has with them, I will present Longino's own account of scientific knowledge and inquiry.
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
The authority of the theory of evolution can be characterized by defining what qualifies as a scientific theory. Although there are several perspectives regarding what science is, they are based on the same premises. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, claims that the process of “conjectures and refutations” is the method of science (46). In this process, a
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
The Chalmers's view against the Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper mentioned that people shouldn't concentrate our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction.Also, he claimed that without relying on induction we still can work out how science works and why it is rational.1 Hence, I would like to said Popper would disagree with Chalmer's opinion. Also, I think Popperian might say Chalmers is wrong because his falsifiable in Popperian sense. Chalmers might be falsified if scientific knowledge is observed not reliable due to some experiment and observation might contain mistakes and we do not find them now. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science can not be prove but can justify the better theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are better ones as there is falsified is found, or not scientific. When they are found falsified or not scientific, we can seek for novel bold hypot...
Popper believes that science does not begin with the collection of empirical data, but starts with the formulation of a hypothesis (Veronesi, 2014, p1). Alexander Bird outlines Popper’s view on the scientific method in his book Philosophy of Science (1998, pp.239-240). This view is that scientists use a process of imagination to invent a hypothesis. However, once this has been established, scientists must attempt to
... been the underlying factor in many scientific advancements. Morris believes that, "It is an empiricism which, because of this orientation and the use of powerful tools of logical analysis, has become positive in temper and co-operative in attitude and is no longer condemned to the negative skeptical task of showing defects in the methods and results of its opponents(Neurath68)." The great accomplishments of Brahe, Kepler, Newton and the many others are due to the advancement of scientific empiricism.
Charlesworth, M. (1982). Science, non-science & pseudo-science : Bacon, Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend on defining science. Vic: Deakin University Press
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.