Empirical information regarding the world is gathered by use of inductive reasoning. This inductive reasoning is defined, not with validity like deductive reasoning , but with the likelihood of the conclusion occurring (Béziau, 2005). In other words, inductive arguments gather from instances of evidence to formulate the likelihood of the occurrence of a conclusion that is much larger in scope than the body of evidence that supports it. Consequently, inductive arguments are said to make generalizations of empirical claims that are composed only from observed instances. Because of this, inductive arguments do not contain full certainty but will always have a degree of uncertainty associated with them. This is because it cannot be said with full
…show more content…
For example, a black raven is a confirming instance of the argument that all ravens are black while a white raven is a disconfirming instance. This notion of confirmation additionally assumes a notion of sufficient condition. This condition is one in which there exists empirical evidence that can confirm the original argument—that the hypothesis must have sufficient conditions that can be met (Hempel, 1945). Another assumption of confirmation arguments is that of logical equivalence. This assumption states that given a confirming instance of a proposition that all ravens are black, the same instance would also confirm the proposition that whatever is not a raven is not …show more content…
First, the problem of the ravens appears to be problematic because of the notion that all objects can support the original hypothesis. However, this problem would be avoided by removing the background information that is brought into the discussion when considering the first hypothesis—that all ravens are black. For example, if we consider a silver spoon to confirm the raven hypothesis, we would first have to know what a spoon is, it not being a raven, in order to consider it evidence. Such evidence would not strengthen the raven hypothesis because of the previous knowledge of the spoon not being a raven. The problem would subsequently vanish if the object being evaluated as evidence had no prior knowledge associated with it (Hempel, 1945). In other words, a hypothesis can only be confirmed and strengthened by evidence that has no prior knowledge or context associated with it. With that being said, it follows that once evidence has been evaluated, such evidence can no longer add to the credibility of the hypothesis that it originally
For example, a black raven is a confirming instance of the argument that all ravens are black while a white raven is a disconfirming instance. This notion of confirmation additionally assumes a notion of sufficient condition. This condition is one in which there exists empirical evidence that can confirm the original argument—that the hypothesis must have sufficient conditions that can be met (Hempel, 1945). Another assumption of confirmation arguments is that of logical equivalence. This assumption states that given a confirming instance of a proposition that all ravens are black, the same instance would also confirm the proposition that whatever is not a raven is not …show more content…
First, the problem of the ravens appears to be problematic because of the notion that all objects can support the original hypothesis. However, this problem would be avoided by removing the background information that is brought into the discussion when considering the first hypothesis—that all ravens are black. For example, if we consider a silver spoon to confirm the raven hypothesis, we would first have to know what a spoon is, it not being a raven, in order to consider it evidence. Such evidence would not strengthen the raven hypothesis because of the previous knowledge of the spoon not being a raven. The problem would subsequently vanish if the object being evaluated as evidence had no prior knowledge associated with it (Hempel, 1945). In other words, a hypothesis can only be confirmed and strengthened by evidence that has no prior knowledge or context associated with it. With that being said, it follows that once evidence has been evaluated, such evidence can no longer add to the credibility of the hypothesis that it originally