Philosophy of Science: Problem of Induction - Essay Example

Running Head: Philosophy of Science – Problem of Induction Philosophy of Science – Problem of Induction [Institute’s Philosophyof Science – Problem of Induction Introduction Since centuries, suppositions have remained an imperative part of human lives, and it is an observation that humans, especially scientists have been successful in achieving the impossible based on their inductive inferences that indicate the significant contribution of presumptions in the human scientific society. Due to such significance of inductive suppositions, a huge number of experts, philosophers, and scientists1 have put efforts to evaluate and analyze the role of inductive inferences in scientific achievements of the humans. In specific, various experts have argued on the utilization of induction methodology by scientists to obtain universal standards. Such arguments have now resulted in the creation of a philosophical problem, the problem of induction that stands disputed, especially in case of the scientists that are in continuation of using this technique of considering limited number of instances to derive a universal formula. In order to understand the problem of induction, the example of swans will be evident to provide an effective understanding of the issue. By means of induction, it was a universal principle that swans are white, as few centuries ago, people had only seen white swans, and the scientists were inclined to derive the declaration that all swans are white. In this regard, scientists have until today continued to magnify specific observations to create common principles to carry out their planning for prospects of the physical world. However, the major argument of the adversaries of this methodology argues regarding the validity of such suppositions based on only finite observations. Until today, various experts2 have argued over the problem of induction; however, historical evidence indicates that David Hume was the first person to inquire about this issue, and carry out analysis accordingly. During his analysis, he wrapped up by saying that inductive suppositions do not carry any logical explanations, and thus, it is incorrect for scientists to originate universal theories based on such finite observations3. In response, various philosophers endeavored to come up with a solution; however, this problem of induction has remained a major problem in the Western philosophy due to its disputed nature. In this regard, Hume enjoys huge number of advocates until today; however, few of the experts have criticized Hume’s critique on the problem while concluding that although such inferences do not carry justifications4. However, it is erroneous to specify that science depend on the induction, and while declaring this, experts like Karl Popper has dismissed the problem of induction as something very important. In particular, this paper is an attempt to discuss and analyze the problem of induction while considering the arguments of Hume & Popper that will enable in effective understanding of the problem, especially for the scientists. Humes Argument Analysis of Hume’s argument regarding the problem of induction has indicated that he discussed this problem in most of his publications, such as The Treatise of Human Nature5, etc while relating the problem with his concepts on the relationship of cause and effect. During his explanation, Hume pointed out as one ball hit another ball, the perception shows striking of a ball with another motionless ball, and such strike results in transformation of motionless ball into a ball in motion. This observation indicates that the first ball commenced the motion of the other ball. With this indication, Hume6 argued that, thus, continuity in time and position are essential factors for all causes to make some effects. From this stance, he believed that similarity in such essential factors would always result in similar effects. In this regard, Hume credited continuous combination between cause and effect as the basis of related effects. During his analysis of the problem of induction, Hume was unable to identify anything besides this conjunction; however, accepted that a supernatural quality exists between causes and effects that nature has been hiding from the humans, and until now, the humans have only been successful in observing physical or sane characteristics. From such perspective, Hume7 argued that even if inductive inferences have never been false in the past; however, there is a possibility that they may result in false outcomes due to the hidden quality of the nature. Thus, the methodology of induction is inappropriate to derive universal principles due to limited ability of scientists to justify the rationale of the principles. From Hume’s perception, it is an indication although scientists observe alike causes, as well as similar effects, however, there is a huge possibility of different conjunctions or different connection between the two that dismisses any justification of scientists to create universal principles based on them. In addition, Hume8 pointed out that although there is lack of scientific justification, however, these inductive inferences can always be true only in the metaphysical or philosophical state, and thus, utilization of such means in science is inappropriate. From this perspective, one can take the same example of swans in which, scientists derived that all swans are white based on their finite observations; however, in the year 1697, Dr. Vlamingh was the first one in the human history to see a swan in black color that forged previous principle of the scientists9. Thus, from this example, it is true that inductive inferences can be useful; however, can never be rational conclusions. Subsequently, as science is completely a study based on rational justification, therefore, consideration of induction by scientists is erroneous. Due to this rational justification of Hume’s arguments10, Hume received huge significance in the issue of induction. In order to analyze the problem of induction further, few other experts have indicated two other reasons of considering inductive inferences as irrational, and thus, erroneous for scientists11. Firstly, although induction has resulted in undisputed principles, however, they do not have the ability of proving their validity through demonstration, deduction, or experiment that is the basis of science. Secondly, even if one overlooks the requisite of deductive status of inferences, induction cannot offer rational justifications due to their basis on suppositions depending on circular utilization of inductive interpretation. In this regard, experts have pointed out that rational explanation can only offer error-free principles, and as induction does not have such ability, thus, it will be likely to offer erroneous principles in the future that can be a huge problem for the scientists. In this regard, Hume12 argued that the only means to transform suppositions into inductive ideas is through experience of the continuous connection between the causes and effects, still hidden in the secrets of nature. In other words, Hume pointed out that even if scientists have been relying on the experience of the cause and effects; however, it is a fact that their experiences are not outcomes of rational reasoning, but only on their particular observations and interpretations. In particular, advocates of Hume argue that, as the statement of the Uniformity Principle, ‘future resembles the past’ does not rely on rational justification but only human experience. Similarly, induction relies on only the human experiences and not any rationale that may result in contradictory effects in the future. In specific, experts argue that all the scientists have the understanding that nature can change anytime, and as the nature will change, there will be different and diverse contiguity between the causes and effects that will result in dismissal and falsification of all the preceding universal principles of the science13. For instance, until 1697, ‘all swans are white’ was a uniformity principle that inclined everybody to consider future swans as white. However, observation of black swans in 1697 falsified such a principle. In this regard, one can argue that inductive inferences can be a possibility; however, scientists cannot provide confident and definite justifications based on the induction14. From such an analysis, one can conclude that induction even if not rational can offer truthful principles on the long-term basis; however, in specific circumstances, it is possible that they will present false presentations of the truth. Response Although Hume’s analysis seems the final revelation, however, that is not the case, and various experts and philosophers endeavored to respond to Hume’s responses. In specific, Hume claimed that the Uniformity Principle15 is the basis of all the suppositions of induction, and that this principle is not rational, but only experiential. In response, various experts have argued over the supposition of Hume that all the inductive inferences rely on the uniformity principle. A few experts have indicated that Hume was right, and induction really depends on the Uniformity Principle because consideration of the principle allows the advocates of induction to portray it as valid and legitimate. From such stance, Hume’s arguments seem valid that inductive inferences are probable but they depend on hidden foundation, still hidden from the scientists. However, few experts criticized Hume’s arguments16 by indicating that attribute dissimilarity between inductive and deductive inferences is that, if the foundation is valid, the effect of deductive inference will be valid, which is against the arguments of Hume regarding inductive logic. A different response to Hume’s interpretation on the problem of induction is observable in the light of relevance and applicability of inductive inferences by the scientists. The fact that this paper is an outcome of the usage of laptop can be an evidence of the truthfulness of the principles of physics that are working in the form of technology in the laptop. In this regard, one can dismiss the argument of Hume that science is depending on inductive inferences, as the abovementioned examples shows that science actually relies on the applicative reasoning rather than induction only17. However, there exists one issue in this justification of the induction in science. The issue is that this example is using the scientific means to validate another scientific technique that is itself a circular reasoning, and thus, relates to the Uniformity Principle, which indicates possible arguments and criticisms. Poppers Rationalism Besides Hume, Karl Popper18 has been another prominent expert who put efforts to solve the problem of induction, especially in the science. During his analysis, Popper categorized scientific method as a course of action involving inferences and negations rather than observation and experiences. While characterizing science, Karl ironically defined scientists as people existing in a dark room with dark clothing while finding a black cap that might not even be present there19. In this regard, Karl20 criticized Hume by specifying that there exists no logic means of deriving new concepts, and thus, creation of scientific theories always will have an irrational component. For instance, Karl indicated intuition as the irrational component that enabled Einstein to understand during an experience. Similarly, in the example of Isaac Newton, falling of an apple from the tree was part of the illogical constituent that enabled Newton to derive the theory of gravity. From this analysis, Popper offered his theory of critical rationalism that is his personal view of solving the problem of induction21. According to him, science is not about inductive inferences, but about painstaking critical analysis endeavoring to forge the theory. In brief, Popper offered a simple and short solution to the issue of induction by arguing the science simply is not utilizing the means of induction to acquire new information and to derive new theories. He indicates that as science is all about conjectures and negations, thus, scientists have only the ability to make assumptions from the speculated theories. In addition, while responding to Hume’s interpretation of the problem of induction, Karl22 accepted the Hume’s negation of induction from a logical perspective; however, Karl disagreed with Hume’s interpretation during analyzing the problem of induction psychologically. Karl argued that from Hume’s psychological explanation of the problem of induction, it seemed that every view of the scientists and humans are illogical and invalid that was very skeptic of him to conclude in the problem of induction. In the result, Karl put efforts to provide a solution by revise Hume’s explanation by involving the notion of negations that resolved the problem of induction in psychological perspective of Hume. Conclusion To sum up, the paper identified that the issue of induction, especially in the relation with scientists has been an issue involving evaluating the validity and accuracy of inductive inferences. It is an observation that this problem has been outcome of contrasting induction with deduction that results in the perplexity about the connection of reasoning and deduction. For some experts, the main issue in the case of induction is the methodology to carrying out inductive reasoning. In this regard, one can acquire different solutions to the problem of induction by regulating their methods and approaches. However, at the same time as the proof exists that scientists do logical explanations while regulating their methods, some other proofs exist that the effects are mostly undependable and easily negated due to the realization of unreliability of the methods and opinions. In addition, it is an observation that, as logical analysis usually includes negating previous assumptions and conjectures; it is confusing to come up even with a preferred level of dependability and validity. In this regard, although the paper included different instances and explanations to discuss and analyze the problem of induction, it is the understanding that a reasonable and agreeable solution to this problem and its different aspects, as identified in the points of Hume and Popper. Although Karl provided effective premises to respond to Hume’s arguments, however, the solution seems partial due to presupposition of the Uniformity Principle that is indefensible. After such an analysis, this all seems chaos, changeable and erratic confusion that is the answer to the problem of induction; however, success of technology seems an evident proof to negate the doubtful and dubious arguments and claims of Hume. Once again, the technology is running based on physical systems that are outcomes of inductive reasoning by the scientists. Still, one can state that this world is a form of reality without any rational explanation, and thus, the problem of induction came into form to remain in existence and continuity to make sense of other things psychologically. Lastly, if one cannot acquire a rational understanding of scientific deductions, then the paper will be inclined to favor thoughts and arguments of Hume. On the other hand, instrumentalist theories can be very effective solutions to the problem of induction in which, the assessment of scientific theories relies on their applicability and prospective predictability rather than its demonstrative and deductive abilities23. However, still, instrumentalist theories cannot be the complete solution to the problem of induction, and they can act as theories that can facilitate scientists in circumventing the philosophical and psychological confusions associated with inductive understandings. Overwhelmingly, the paper included discussion, analysis, and evaluation of some of the noteworthy aspects of the problem of induction. In addition, the paper has recognized and examined justifications of different philosophers and experts related to the problem; however, it is an understanding that prospective studies on the same issue of induction will enable a more comprehensive and critical evaluation of the induction. Finally, it is anticipation that the paper will be valuable for students and professionals in better understanding of the problem from a philosophical, as well as scientific point of view. References Creighton, James Edwin. 2000. An Introductory Logic. New York: Adegi Graphics. Eintalu, Juri. 2001. The Problem of Induction. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Foley, R. 1994. “Egoism in Epistemology.” Socializing Epistemology. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Hacking, I. 1965. The Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hume, David, Wright, John P. 2003. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Everyman. Hume, David. 1894. An Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding, and an Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Poovey, Mary. 1998. A History of the Modern Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popper, Karl. 1989. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge. Popper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge. Popper, Karl. 1998. ‘The problem of induction.’ Philosophy of science. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Russell, Bertrand. 1961. History of western philosophy. London: Routledge. Simon, D. 2004. “A Third View of the Black Box.” University of Chicago Law Review. Volume 71, pp. 511-586. Simon, D., Pham, L. B. 2001. “The Emergence of Coherence over the Course of Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Volume 27, pp. 1250-1260. Stich, S., Nisbett, R. 1980. “Justification and the Psychology of Human Reasoning,” Philosophy of Science. Volume 47, pp. 188-202. Thagard, P. 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science. Volume 185, pp. 1124-1131. Warburton, Nigel. 2004. Philosophy. London: Routledge. Read More