Problem Of Induction

Abstract

Science is a never-ending, habitually altering method through which we discover to understand the material environment of the universe. Science does not deal with nonmaterial entities for example gods, for there is no way their reality can be either verified or disproved. No lone, identifiable procedure concerns to all parts of science; the only procedure, in detail, is anything the scientist can use to find the answer to a problem. This encompasses induction, a pattern of reasoning that recognises likenesses inside a assembly of particulars, and deduction, a pattern of reasoning that recognises a specific by its resemblance to a set of acknowledged facts.

Introduction

In an essay entitled Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?, Peter Medewar claimed that induction, in contrast to deduction, had no place in science. His implication of fraud was not aimed, not at the paper's contents, but at how they were presented, and here he strongly implied that this presentation was an inductive process. Medewar was a great admirer of Karl Popper, a philosopher of science. In The Logic of Scientific Discovery , Popper rejected induction as a legitimate form of logic in the practice of science. To bolster his argument against induction in science, Medewar cited an unsuccessful attempt by John Stuart Mill to solve problems in sociology by induction, but neglected to mention Francis Bacon's contribution to the birth of modern science in the 17th century by the use of induction as a powerful alternative to Aristotelian and scholastic dogma. (Cutler 2003: 15-20)

Popper and Medewar argued vehemently for a method of scientific practice based on the so-called hypothetico-deductive system, the essence of which is the formulation of a hypothesis derived from a collection of facts, testing the hypothesis by trying to 'falsify' it, collecting more facts if 'falsification' fails, and repeating the falsification tests until either you and the hypothesis agree on a draw or one of you admits defeat. Medewar (1915-1987) shared the 1960 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology with Sir Frank MacFarlane for their work on the mechanism of tolerance to acquired immunity. Karl Popper (1902-1994) was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1976, so there's no question here about the kinds of minds we're dealing with. (Darwin 2009:65-85)

Both forms of logic are aids to but not the solution of the scientist's problem. Being a good scientist requires patience, perseverance, imagination, curiosity, and skepticism; the essence of science is to doubt without adequate proof. Science also requires knowing how to make and interpret observations (which presupposes a broad point of view), how to ask the right questions, how to theorize without getting lost in the details, and knowing when to do experiments and apply statistical tests. Recognition of one's work is desirable but should not be the primary goal, and publishing papers should be used primarily as a test of the scientist's ability to pursue good science. (Duster 2005:65-74)

Problem Of Induction

Medewar's essay and Popper's philosophy of science are a good example ...