Popper's Fallibilist Argument Analysis

Decent Essays
Part B (4)

The scientific method has often been proclaimed as a naive method that uses an observation to generate a statement which is then generalised; extrapolated from what had been observed to what has not yet been observed. The statement is then tested to a certain extent. If it successfully dodges any failure, it is accepted as a true theory and henceforth, a justified belief. This is an inductive inference as it uses the past to predict future behaviours and serves as the justifying blocks of the Scientific reasoning. I will argue that induction cannot be a basis for justified true beliefs (Knowledge - certainty) as we haven 't come around any way for its justification. Moreover we will see how we can possibly justify the use of the scientific method using Popper’s Fallibilist approach.

Induction can be defined as a basic belief that is justified by inductive inference. In other words, we accept a belief as being true only because it has proven to be true in the past even though we have no certain means to show it will be true in the future. Let us consider how induction is
…show more content…
The narrative view integrates the person’s past, perceived present and imagined future as one flowing sphere that serves a purpose. It is often argued that most radical and instant changes in identities tend to constitute in a loss of identity. Narrative identity view tends, on the other hand, to explain how over time a person changes smoothly even though ten years back he was a totally different person; there is still a certain link over time. Let’s for example take a twenty year old boy, named Carl, who has always been militating against domestic violence, but twenty years later, has serious depression and money issues. He then becomes an alcoholic who occasionally beats his

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Humans contain a deep yearning for knowledge. Given that the previous sentence is merely an assertion with no justification, there is no need for one to believe me – it may be true, but until that is justified and found to be true, it is nothing beyond a belief. Prior to a proposition’s justification, one should not be infer that it is knowledge. Justification for objective knowledge can be divided into two categories: a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments. These categories take many names; a posteriori is similar to empirical arguments, which are defined as observational proof.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    You start to doubt everything. In this way, if the reliability of deduction is in doubt, there is no way that we can use the deduction to prove the unreliability of induction. Then the foundation of the problem of induction is broken, because the problem of induction is an argument made in the form of deduction. The existence of the problem of induction needs the method of deduction to be…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Examples Of Corrobortion

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Popper believed that no good reasons could be given for believing that past results is reliable for the future. The letter of recommendation is like confirmation because it says something about…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true using induction, since it is hard to find evidence that will assure us that contrary evidence will not be traced. To argue this, Karl Popper suggested that proper science is accomplished by a method he referred to as deduction. Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Induction Methodology

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The reductionists agree upon that if the premises are true then eventually true theory (Schick, 2000). Schick (2000) argued that “any theory that can be deduced from true evidence must be true”( p. 35). Popper (1959) and Hume (n.d.) believed in the principle of experience as a fundamental concept for the nature of scientific theory (as cited in Schick, 2000). Hume (n.d.) disagreed with the induction method due to its illogical and irrational methodology to reach the conclusion (as cited in Schick, 2000). Hume (n.d.) believed that this method did not provide clear and consistence approach to solve any scientific phenomena (as cited in Schick, 2000).…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Realists hold this argument to be a sufficient proof of their position. However, anti-realists assert that because this argument is dependent on an inference of the best explanation, it cannot be held up as a decisive proof. Moreover, the anti-realist Van Fraassen argues that by accepting theories as explanations, the authority of a theory tainted, they become nothing more than mere explanatory value. For example, Aristotle explained the descent of objects towards the ground through teleological claims about the tendencies of elements. Today, explanations of this sort would be rejected, yet Aristotle offered a reliable prediction that explained the observed phenomena.…

    • 811 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The problem of induction is the question if inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood on the philosophical sense on the lack of justification that, generalizing about properties of similar observations, and assuming a sequence of events will occur in the future the same way as they have done in the past. Hume believes that, “we have no reason to believe the conclusion of any inductive argument.” Inductive means to look for strong evidence to find the truth of a conclusion. In Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he is trying to doubt the hope that the reader can have many reasonable beliefs. Hume does this using a priori and a posteriori statements. An a priori statement is the process of reasoning without a reference to certain…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Popper, any theory can be proven false through empirical evidence or experimental data but cannot be proven true. In this view, any theory is always in the state of being not yet disproved. However, Kuhn thinks that in normal science the theory is not questioned until “the crisis stage” in the Kuhn Cycle. Kuhn claims that scientists does not try to refute their theories instead they try to prove them and seek evidence for their theories whereas Popper claims that scientists try to…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays