Induction Methodology

Improved Essays
Show More
The purpose of this paper is to describe the difference between inductive and deductive methods in philosophy and defend the deductive methodological approach as the best method to validate a scientific theory. Schick believed that any scientific theories must be founded on empirical and logical evidences, which accounted for the validity and the reasoning for these theories (2000). The position that the student will take in this paper is in favor for the deduction methodology and its scientific reasoning to approach theories. In support of induction methodological approach for the scientific theory, a discussion of Kuhn and Hempel point of views in endorsing the nation of induction is essential. In induction, the reasoning moves from …show more content…
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). Also, Schick (2000) said that Popper believed in the logical deduction methodology in testing the hypothesis; hence the induction has no role in scientific theory. Popper (1959) rejected the notion of the universal statement to be the bases for empirical sciences (as cited in Schick, 2000). It seems that the induction methodology has weak justifications to its perception regarding science and pseudoscience. However, logical reasoning in deduction methodology provides a better and strong approach to develop scientific theory. Therefore, it is necessary to support deduction methodology in this …show more content…
The position was taken here is in support of deduction methodology as the best way to approach theory in science. Induction method starts with specific observations to develop a final general statement that explains the phenomena but this does not guarantee the accuracy and the truth of its conclusion. Unlike induction, deduction relies on continuous logical and empirical testing of the hypothesis that should be the foundation of any science. In fact, supporting critical thinking and logic to gain the true knowledge are essential in today’s

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Karl Popper's Theory Of Falsification
    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Karl Popper's Theory Of Falsification

    The adherents of a pseudo-science are able to firmly attach the hypotheses no matter how the events unfolded. However, Popper accepted that unrestricted generalizations could not be verified. Instead, he pointed out they can only be falsified. I agreed with the account of Popper’s philosophy of science from the view that falsification is the ultimate way of understanding the various ways of scientific methods and approaches. This is simply because a universal explanatory theory is only true if it can be justified in various empirical reasons that are well outlined, and thus, achieved by assuming the truth and credibility of particular test statements or observational judgment.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Kuhn And Popper's View Of Science
    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Kuhn And Popper's View Of Science

    The reason for why I would not choose Popper 's view is his standing against an empiricist view of science along with his falsification principle. It does not take into account observational and descriptive science such as social science, medicine and psychology. Even though Kuhn 's view is also not compatible with empricism-actually logical empricism, his paradigm-driven science view is much compelling to me. I find more compelling it for two reasons. First reason is Kuhn 's role of history in science and paradigm.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Decent Essays

    Examples Of Corrobortion
    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Examples Of Corrobortion

    Karl Popper believed that a theory could not be confirmed by the empirical method but it could be corroborated. Corroboration was used by Popper for something that a scientific theory acquires when it survives attempts to refute it. Peter Godfrey Smith gives an analogy of how corroboration can be understood with the example of the academic transcript and a letter of recommendation. The transcript is like corroboration because it says what the student has done and measure your past performance but it does not say about what you will do in the future. Popper believed that no good reasons could be given for believing that past results is reliable for the future.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Karl Popper Criticism Of Falsificationism
    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Karl Popper Criticism Of Falsificationism

    For example, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does not match the results, we use deductive logic to declare the theory false. However, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does match the results, we would typically use inductive logic to affirm the theories truth. However, Popper claims that science can only falsify theories, theories that make correct predictions can never be affirmed. Instead, scientists must assert (when met with correct predictions) that they failed to refute the theory. Popper insists then that the proper scientific method is as…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification
    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Karl Popper Falsification

    Aside from that, Popper's main objection was that one could not test all proposed predictions of a theory, and even if that was possible, the more confirmations or rejection that arise from empirical experimentation are not definitive and prone to bias. This model allows the scientists more of an opportunity to look for predictions that will be confirmed in an effort to support a desired outcome. Popper's solution is to select predictions that are least likely to be confirmed, and then attempt to falsify a theory. Failure to falsify a theory serves as endorsement of the theory.3 Since law claims can be falsified but not verified, Popper concluded that the way to truth is indirect, by elimination of falsehood. This allows for science to produce errors and mistakes, certainly not a negative thing in the eyes of every true scientist.…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Analysis Of Karl Popper's Theory Of Falsification
    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Analysis Of Karl Popper's Theory Of Falsification

    Scientists still praise Popper because of his belief that scientific theories should be constantly tested. All theories are tested and the results are analyzed by the scientific community in order to determine whether the results can be trusted or not. Some scientists believe that theories can never truly be proven but testing is necessary in order to differentiate between incorrect theories and theories that do a better job at explaining physical phenomena. According to some, a theory cannot explain the truth behind phenomena but it can highlight a…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Induction In David Hume's Argument
    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Induction In David Hume's Argument

    One very impressive attack on Hume’s argument, trying to solve it with its definition, is as follows. The first premise of the argument is challenged, which is “if we want induction to be rationally justified, induction must be reliable.” Since the definition of deduction is based on the validity of an argument, which is assumed to be reliable, why couldn’t reliability be a part of the definition of induction? Induction is defined to be reliable in this attack. However, reliability cannot be a part of the definition because it is a way to evaluate those methods, such as deduction and induction. The criteria for the evaluation is a totally different idea than the method itself.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Ashutosh Jogalekar's Post Summary
    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Ashutosh Jogalekar's Post Summary

    Jogalekar first states that Berezow's defining qualities for what makes something scientific are reasonable, yet incomplete and narrow. He believes Berezow's criteria should be used more "like a ruler for psychology to examine its own gaps and goals" (Jogalekar 2013). His defense for psychology begins early on by confronting first against what he states is Berezow's largest argument against psychology; lack of adequate definitions and…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Falsification And Disagreement In Research
    • 1521 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Falsification And Disagreement In Research

    Falsification is the notion that, after a theory is created, a scientist must seek to disprove said theory; through such a process, refinement strengthens the theory as scientists remove more possibilities (Popper 33-39). As falsification theory does not prove that the previous model was incorrect, it provides a less emotional way for researchers to develop new ideas. Likewise, the natural sciences possess specific criteria which must be met before an issue is further considered; this can be seen in the underlying mechanism of the scientific method. An observation results in a hypothesis, and experimentation either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Through such structured methodology, a concept becomes a theory, and a theory can then become a law.…

    • 1521 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Prolegomena By Immanuel Kant Analysis
    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Prolegomena By Immanuel Kant Analysis

    Although Kant challenges the nature of school metaphysics and claims that it is not a true science, he argues that the critique is more valuable as a study. Using this comparison, the critique is closer to true science, like chemistry or astronomy, whereas school metaphysics is similar to alchemy or astrology. To Kant, school metaphysics is a form a pseudoscience that does not provide knowledge, yet claims to be a true science. For metaphysics to be established as a true science, it is necessary for a critique of pure reason must systematically investigate the role of a priori concepts in understanding. This is how Kant believes that the critique can be closer to chemistry and astronomy than school metaphysics…

    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2023 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  CA Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings