The Constancy of Change in the Problem of Induction as Recurrently Perceived in the Philosophy of Science - Coursework Example

THE CONSTANCY OF CHANGE IN THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION AS RECURRENTLY PERCEIVED IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE BY One of the oldest and concurrently proves itself to be correct is the adage that nothing is constant in this world except for change. Time and again scientific beliefs and other general information has proven themselves to be elusive of constancy and wherefore previous scientific inquiry has set forth conclusions only time can tell whether or not it will remain to be as is. The fact of the matter that all our perceived knowledge is subject to interpretation, debate and re-analysis would mean that it becomes almost impossible to regard one thing as true and valid for perpetuity. This is the thrill of science and of the human mind but this is also at some point its downfall. The pathos that may come from this persistent evolution and re-discovery is nothing short than human nature at work. Our need to satisfy investigation and the genius’ need to break the status quo puts in motion a series of unexpected and anticipated discoveries that may result in the overthrow of previous propositions. This is where the problem of induction in the science of philosophy usually revolves upon. It is a paradox that sets off a rubber band effect on the field of science. It pushes and it pulls and it is not always acquiescent. It opens up a can of worms, so to speak, as it taunts the matter of scientific investigation in the process of the possibility that general truths may not be generally true in the long run. The Philosophy of Inductive Reasoning David Hume was among the first to put into question the discord between inductive reasoning and science. He argues the relevance of inference based on two conditions between a regarded fact and another that is unobserved. It follows that the second one is automatically deducible from the previous fact, without intrusion of another statement among pertinent concepts, due to ‘Relation of Ideas.’ While the other is deducible simply because of co-relation from other decrees set forth. In essence, it would take effect that inferences cannot be deduced and are simply ‘habits’ or ‘customs’ since it becomes a matter of association as two things are deemed to be together (Suchting 1990). Hume was also vehement in accepting ‘dogmatic rationalism’ as presented by Rene Descartes. He sees it as lacking as such plain reasoning would not provide exceptional results for complex scientific questions. This as he sees it would not provide profound and genuine knowledge. A reasoning based on a priori would only appear to be yielding a result. This cloud of doubt that is premised in Cartesian reasoning is intolerable as Hume recognizes its flaws (Keuzenkamp n.d.). Such discord was the primary basis for the merit of Hume’s proposition regarding induction and science. There is also the variation among scientists wherein there are those regarded as traditionalists who tend to continue work on already established theories in able to expand them while there are those who opt to revamp and refine them anew. Magnus describes this as ‘underdetermined’ over some yet unknown but equally imminent discoveries. These in a sense are rivals of already conceived ideas and theories. This has time and again proven itself to be entrenched in scientific evolution and thus confirms that there can be no generalization made from induction and the proposed schema is insufficient (2006). It therefore becomes a whole problem in rationalization as it is human instinct to use induction if possible. Questions arise from empirical thought and conclusions are derived inductively. The disposition reverts to the simple psychology of human cognition. The main concern for this now becomes that the epistemology gives way to ‘normative epistemology’ which requires formed line of thinking based on its virtue. It then becomes unreliable as a matter of probability. A priori would be indispensable to be able to differentiate between cohesive inference and errors. It opens up the question of other possibilities in the identification and prevention of inductive inaccuracy (Hájek and Hall n.d.). The matter-of-fact that induction is imperfect as Hume exemplifies gives way to the domino effect of questioning that burdens itself in the scientific field. Because it presents that a projection in the future may suggest or lead up to a faulty conclusion those that are of inductive reasoning in nature, the idea of finalization becomes impossible as it is an issue of probability and this more often than not varies as time goes along. A generalization from specific to universal truths poses a system that is vulnerable to errors. The bigger question then juxtaposes itself among scientists inferring through deductive reasoning that their results would always be open for potential dispute. MRI vs. CT The article ‘Gunshot wounds to the spine’ is a good example of the process of induction as applied in the most practical sense. It cites the disagreement in the question of the need in gunshot wounds in the cervical spine to be cleared radiographically. A study was made of 53 patients of similar afflictions to the cranium but with no fractures in the cervical spine. Another research found that the wounds within the calvaria bear no concomitant trauma in 105 patients. Conversely, wounds outside the perimeter of the calvaria incurred 10% fracture. While another study dividing the face into three zones found 10-20% damage within the orbital and maxillary region and none in the mandibular zone. Based on this, it is induced that the maxilla and orbits are the most dangerous when it comes to cervical spine injury and that radiography should be administered for these incidents. Computed Tomography (CT) was also prescribed as it permits clearly locating the bullet in the spinal canal as a foreign body (Bono and Heary 2004). On the other hand, the utilization of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is also questionable in evaluating spinal gunshot wounds. This is primarily due to the sensible argument that the force of the magnet emanating from the machine could lead to neurological and muscle damage. There are on the other side of the spectrum, copious reports that MRI in comparison to CT provides advantages in the imaging of the axial, coronal and sagittal vision of neural elements. The writer concludes that decision on the use of the MRI should be based on the patient and the individual in charge for particular cases (Bono and Heary 2004). Ultimately, it is the decision of the physician to navigate the safest and most efficient way towards prognosis and the patient’s immediate recovery. A study in 1989 conducted in the United States recorded the variation in the protocol on the handling of Cervical Spine Injuries (CSIs) for imaging. This ranges from delineation to central lateral views to five analyses in a series which includes the ‘anterior, posterior, two obliques and a peg view’ (Tins and Cassar-Pullicino 2004). With 50 children suffering from CSI, researchers found that 98% were diagnosed with plain films. Nonetheless, it failed to spot in 5 cases significant findings and a case remained undetected. Other studies recorded less impressive findings with a three-view series of the ‘anterior-posterior, lateral and peg’ (ibid.). It is therefore conclusive that a five-view series approach is preferable. This then proves that proper patient diagnosis in CSI is overlooked because of poor imaging. The study also concluded that around 10-20% of CSIs were not detected with radiographs because of ‘suboptimal radiographic errors’ (ibid.). The advent of CT provided for an additional option in image examination for CSI victims. It stimulated interest and was immediately regarded as an answer to the commonly conceived problems. It epitomized how unreliable radiographs are in the evaluation of CSI. The disparity between the two methods ranged from 1.5 % and 61%, it therefore became the favored alternative which ultimately became the benchmark for radiology. The more recent multi-slice CT has overthrown the single-slice in dependability. There remains the Achilles’ heel of CT in the analysis of bony injuries. Even more recently, scanners with multi-detection capability are still in test. MRI is also regarded to be of import in injuries of the soft tissues but is deemed unreliable and risky when it comes to bony injuries (Tins and Cassar-Pullicino 2004). MRI remains to be a safe option as a radiology procedure though patients still need to be cautioned before they are subjected to the examination. Some of the concerns that should be addressed include that the facility to execute the procedure should screen the individual and that the doctors recommending it should educate the patient of its contraindications. They must be cautious in referring unsuitably. This applies especially to patients who show symptoms of panic, claustrophobia or anxiety due to the aesthetic form of the apparatus. It may help to provide sedatives, prisms, headphones, etc. to soothe the patient during the entire process. At the end of the day, it is of the utmost importance that the patient is educated on the benefits as well as the risks involved. They must first be informed of all other exhaustible options available. The most essential question is the subsistence of ferromagnetic objects. These are gauged in location, shape and size and leads to proper diagnosis (Grenier, Scordilis and Wessely 2005). Trauma victims pose the need for undivided attention as a flawed diagnosis can lead to severe consequences that could have a life-long adverse effect on a person. One of the primary concerns of physicians is the decision of the exclusion of spinal injury in a patient as it also comes with medical, and consequently, legal weight. Coined ‘defensive medicine,’ this approach refers to the protocol for a thorough examination of all patients. Imaging which is the first to be administered may not be clearly defined but it remains to be catalytic in the progressive medication. The technology of MRI and CT has given an offshoot to the ease in the early detection of injuries. It has taken a great load off radiologists. Yet there are still questions that medical officers are faced with on a daily basis. These include;’ ‘When should you investigate?’ ‘What should you do?’ and, ‘When do you stop?’ (Cassar-Pullicino 2002). These queries are some of the most essential that medical practitioners are faced with on a regular basis. It all boils down to being able to determine what is enough and what is too much in patient care. Induction in the Study of Radiology In a field where every minute counts, as every second could mean the difference between life and death, induction may not sound as the most ideal option. It opens up a whole plethora of questions and doubt that is unwelcomed when faced with imperative decisions. The problem in induction, as Hume gravely points out is apparent in everyday conflict. It sets off the inkling of doubt because of the unknown that comes with simple probability. But it should not undermine the progression of the individual that leads him to a generalization. This issue, with all its merit, cannot be an end to a means because there are a number of factors along the way that sets off things in motion. As with the matter of the administration of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography, it demonstrates that there is no such thing as constancy in the field of science and deductively, in radiology. The flow of ideas, technology and invention is constant. One minute, it may be that CT is the most revered method of imaging accepted by the majority and the next it is subordinated to the superiority of newer and more advanced methods such as the MRI. In the current future we can assert that there will be something newer and essentially better that could and should replace these technologies as they will in effect become obsolete. This is something that prevails in science and something that we cannot help because it points toward the juggernaut that is progress. For example, the decision over which machinery to use in Cervical Spine Injuries is laid on the medical officers, primarily the doctor as he is the most responsible for the patient. It is therefore in his best interest to provide a logical snap decision based on facts and previous experience. The maturity of the physician to refer the best radiology method would be dependent upon his previous experiences. Because there are discrepancies among studies as earlier cited, the question of what is best for the patient becomes blurred. What would be best for CSI victims? Should they risk him to the contraindications of MRI or settle on the less reliable CT? This in essence is induction at its most integral phase. Limited by the information provided to him by studies and personal experience, the prospect of impeding judgment due mainly on the discord of inductive reasoning and science becomes an infinitesimal setback not a problem. There are matters that are more important than the possibility of being proven wrong in the future whether that may be instantaneous or prolonged. There will always be a negative side to generalization. Defensive medicine exists for quite valid reasons. But more often than not, gut instinct, which may very well be a part of induction goes a long way in the decision process of life saving. Knowledge plus experience transpires to be the best option in such situation. Bibliography Bodley, Roger. 2002. Imaging in chronic spinal cord injury—indications and benefits. European Journal of Radiology: 135–153. Bono, Christopher M., and Robert F. Heary. 2004. Gunshot wounds to the spine. The Spine Journal: 230–240. Cassar-Pullicino, V. N. 2002.Spinal injury optimising the imaging options. European Journal of Radiolog: 85–91. Crispino, Frank. 2008. Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences. Science and Justice: 24-28. Daffner, Richard H., and Scott D. Daffner. 2002. Vertebral injuries: detection and implications. European Journal of Radiology: 100–116. Dai, Li-Yang. 2004. Significance of prevertebral soft tissue measurement in cervical spine injuries. European Journal of Radiology: 73–76. Deming, David. 2008. Design, science and naturalism. Earth-Science Reviews: 49–70. Ducheyne, Steffen. 2006. Reid’s adaptation and radicalization of Newton’s natural philosophy. History of European Ideas: 173–189. Gelman, Susan A. 2004. Psychological essentialism in children. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences: 404-409. Grenier, Julie-Marthe, Peter J. Scordilis, and Michelle A. Wessely. 2005. Lumbar MRI Part 1: Normal imaging appearance of the lumbar spine. Clinical Chiropractic: 205-215. Hájek, Alan, and Ned Hall. n.d. Induction and Probability.The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. 149-172. Helmreich, Stefan. 2007. Induction, deduction, abduction, and the logics of race and kinship. American Ethnologist: 230-232. Jensen, Finn V., and Kim G. Larsen. n.d.Recursively defined domains and their induction principles. Theoretical Computer Science 54: 29-51. Kelly, Kevin B. 2004. Uncomputability: the problem of induction internalized. Theoretical Computer Science: 227 – 249. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. n.d. The philosophy of induction. Probability, Econometrics and Truth: The Methodology of Econometrics 1-10. Macfarlane, Alan. 2001. David Hume and the political economy of agrarian civilization. History of European Ideas: 79–91. Magnus, P. D. 2006. What’s new about the new induction? Synthese: 295–301. Redekop, Benjamin W. 2002. Thomas Reid and the problem of induction:from common experience to common sense. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: 35–57. Rhoda, Alan Robert. 2003. The problem of induction:An epistemological and methodological response. New York: Fordham University. Rothchild, Irving. 2006. Induction, deduction and the scientific method: An eclectic overview of the practice of science. Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. Suchting, W. A. Studies in history and philosophy of science. Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1990. Tins, B. J., and V. N. Cassar-Pullicino. 2004. Imaging of acute cervical spine injuries: review and outlook. Clinical Radiology: 865–880. Tsumoto, Shusaku. 2003. Rule induction with grouping target concepts. Elsevier Science: 286-297. Wessely, Michelle A. 2004.Magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine part 1: normal imaging anatomy. Clinical Chiropractic: 187—195. Williams, Wendy M., Paul B. Papierno, Matthew C. Makel, and Stephen J. Ceci. 2004. Thinking like a scientist about real-world problems:The Cornell Institute for Research on Children Science Education Program. Applied Developmental Psychology: 107–126. Read More