Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

Running head: Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge Inductive reasoning is at the core of scientific theories and it lies in the common sense reasoning. It’s a rational decision making process (Rao, 2006) that lies on the conclusions drawn from the observed patterns. The debate of induction has been important in skepticism and epistemology. Epistemology is a division of philosophy that seeks to make a distinction between the false knowledge from the true knowledge. History reveals that the former theories of knowledge were based on its complete, everlasting nature but presently these theories lay the stress on its relative character (situation dependence), its permanently evolutionary trend, and dynamic interfering with the humankind and universe. The development in knowledge theories started from an entirely fixed, inactive vision of knowledge and moved towards a more active perspective. Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the first who developed the theory of knowledge. Plato is considered a pioneer of philosophical knowledge theory. In his view knowledge is simply a consciousness of complete universal Ideas (he calls these ideas as Forms (Pomerleau, 1997)), existing free of any matter trying to catch them. He was the one who gave the concept of true and false knowledge. In his view, knowledge was said to have taken place only if the person attaining it practiced it. If the person acquires a knowledge which he does not apply, he would be considered as gone through or has attained the false knowledge. Aristotle, who preceded Plato focused more on the rational and experimental methods for gathering knowledge, he accepts the view that such knowledge is a fear of necessary and universal principles. He gave birth to the disciplines of logic and of empirical research (Brasch, 1962). After the Renaissance period, two major epistemological positions conquered philosophy called empiricism, that sees knowledge as the produce of sensory perception (Nabobo-Baba, 2006), and rationalism which distinguishes knowledge as the product of rational indication. The problem of induction is a consequence of such philosophical debates. Induction is used in the scientific knowledge in contrast to the deduction. Previously it was assumed that the scientific knowledge is absolute and cannot be proven as false (Kantorovich, 1993) but as Karl Popper said in his article on the problem of induction: “I think successfully that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false” – Karl Popper (Shimer & Phi Beta Kappa, 1994, p.531). Induction is also recognized as inductive reasoning or inductive logic which is a kind of reasoning which involves touching and achieving a general conclusion from a set of specific facts. In addition, it can be observed as a type of theory-building which is based on the results drawn from specific facts to generate a theory that explains relationships between the phenomenon, variables, and facts. Induction is used to make prediction of future knowledge. The premises of an inductive reasoning point out some level of support for the conclusion but do not involve it. It means that they do not guarantee its genuineness. Induction is used to credit properties or relations to types stood upon a perception example or to devise laws based on incomplete observations of chronic exceptional model. The examples of induction can be of propositions such as: this fire is hot and as I have ever come across a fire that was also hot and I never happened to experience a cold fire, it means that I can induce or conclude that fire is always warm. Another premise can be: this ball always moves when force of any kind is exerted on it. All the balls I have ever seen move with any kind of force interaction with it so all the balls generally and always move when are hit by a force. It means that from an observation or experiment based on small sample we can generalize on the larger level. Like in calculation it is an induction an addition of two odd numbers always leads to an even number. To prove it, add 3 in 7 get an even number. Add 9 in 7 get even number. Therefore it can be concluded by induction that when an odd number is added to another odd number will produce an even number. Although, mathematical induction is not a type of inductive reasoning but for illustration example of mathematics is taken. Besides, the induction has provided science with valuable insight, the problem of induction is a widely discussed philosophical dilemma. It is highly questioned that if the inductive reasoning actually and forever leads to knowledge. This problem of induction is attempted to be justified by argumentation. Many philosophers have worked on it and have contradictory opinions about it. Generalizing the properties and characteristics of a set of objects based on a few observations of particular cases of that class is somehow questionable. For illustration, the presumption that "all crows we have seen are black and therefore all crows are black". How can we generalize it to all crows when we have not seen every crow of this world! Assuming that a series of events in the future will take place as it always has in the past is the problem of induction. Tomorrow it may not happen as it previously did than what will be its explanation. This argument makes the laws of physics questionable if they will hold in future as well, as they have always been observed in the past. David Hume commenced the problem of induction in the mid-18th century, with a good and noteworthy response given by Karl Popper two centuries afterward. In recent times, Wolpert has presented the world with an entirely new probability approach to avoid and address the problem of induction. David Hume defined "reason" as to deductive reasoning and "induction" as the inductive reasoning. He was of the point that the causal relations cannot be found by the reason but by the inductive reasoning. The reason for this given by him is that for any cause there are manifold effects possible. The real consequence cannot be decided by mere reasoning about the initiator; rather, the occurrences of the contributing relation must be discovered that it holds in reality. Hume (1910) wrote in the enquiry 5.1 "Skeptical solution of these doubts" that: “It is by custom or habit that one draws the inductive connection, and without the influence of custom we would be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. The result of custom is belief, which is instinctual and much stronger than imagination alone” (Hume, 1910). In his observation, the problem of induction is not only related to the improbability of inferences consequential of the induction, nevertheless suspect the very notion through which those indefinite conclusions are derived. Conversely, Karl Popper approach to problem of induction was based on the scientific knowledge. It can be concluded that in induction (causal inference) encounter does not bring into being the idea of an effect from an intuition of its grounds by means of the indulgent or reason, but by the view point of Hume that is a “certain association and relation of perceptions” (Hume, 2008, p.76). The hub of the argument is a predicament that if the inductive results were produced by the insight, inductive reasoning would be based upon the principle that outlook is consistent. “That instances of which we have had no experience, must resemble those of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same” (Hume, 2007, p.91). The principle cannot be proved by deductive methods, for no matter what can be proved deductively is an essential truth, and the principle is not indispensable; its precursor is unswerving with the rejection of its resultant. Also the principle cannot be proved by causal reasoning, for it is taken for granted by all such reasoning and any such proof would be a petitio principia (Cohen, Nagel, & Corcoran, 1993). The Latin word petitio means a petition, which is a request in simple words and the word principii is a genitive of principiu also a Latin word that means beginning, initiating, a basis of something or a premise of an argument, literally the term would mean a request for the beginning or founding premise. Shortly it means that in induction the premise relies on the truth of the very matter in question. The contradiction of the ravens can be a good example of induction problem as by enumerative induction When a is a crow and a is black, It will confirm that: All crows are black. This is merely an uncomplicated appliance of instance verification. But if the same rule is applied on a different cause and effect the result will be the same as that was caught in the former example. If a is non-black and a is a not-crow, Then it confirms (to some small extent) That all non-black things are not crows. In short the induction argument leads to skepticism that refers to a situation of doubt regarding the basic researched and induced principles but in spite of skepticism the induction is constructive for scientific knowledge. References Brasch, F. E. (1962). Sir Isaac Newton. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. Cohen, M. R., Nagel, E., & Corcoran, J. (1993). An introduction to logic. Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing. Hume, D. (1910). An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. P.F. Collier & Son. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from, http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#4 Hume, D. (2007). A Treatise of Human Nature – Vol 1. Vancouver, BC: Read Books. Hume, D. (2008). A Treatise of Human Nature. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications, LLC. Kantorovich, A. (1993). Scientific discovery: logic and tinkering. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Nabobo-Baba, U. (2006). Knowing and learning: an indigenous Fijian approach. editorips@usp.ac.fj. Pomerleau, W. P. (1997). Twelve great philosophers: a historical introduction to human nature. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Rao, G. (2006). Rational medical decision making: a case-based approach. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Professional. Shimer, W. A., & Phi Beta Kappa, 1994). The American scholar, Volume 63. Washington D.C.: United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa. Read More