Inductivism: Paradigm Of Science

Improved Essays
Science involves systematic inquiry into the natural world which aims to organize, predict and explain empirical data. One strength is that this definition not only defines science, but mentions what science aims for. A weakness this definition has is it is too broad with the term "the natural word".
Scientism says that unless one can test it scientifically then its not worth anything. Many people affirm this way of thinking because maybe like skeptics they seek certainty in their beliefs and they feel security in this way of thought.
Inductivism is a version of scientific realism that uses the scientific method as an on going process. Inductivism makes scientific advances with experimental data and create theories strictly with that data. One problem with Inductivism is that it uses data obtained through the senses, and not everyone perceives everything the same way as everyone else
…show more content…
Methodological naturalism is not a suitable paradigm for science, because science is used to explain why things are the way they are. If one excludes a particular possibility of explanation, just for the sake of common ground or because they don 't believe in that possibility, then they 're not keeping an open mind, which is an important part of finding explanations. No one discovers the truth with a closed mind.
Long Answer
There are five necessary presuppositions of science. Each one is necessary to presume in order to practice science and they can not be established by science itself.
The first presupposition, the law of thought is necessary because in order to practice science there must be some sort of logic used to determine what make sense as proper data and explanations. The laws of thought can 't be proven scientifically because, actions and thinking presuppose science

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    This is why science cannot prove everything, because we do not know everything; scientist do not have all the answers they are simply guessing. When speaking of science, it is important to differentiate between observational science and historical science. Observational science is that which can be observed and tested…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    2. How does Kuhn 's view differ from Popper 's view of science? Kuhn 's view differs from Popper 's view of science in the way of scientific method. Popper sets a very high standard for scientific method by the principle of demarcation and criticism. According to Popper, any theory can be proven false through empirical evidence or experimental data but cannot be proven true.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Induction Methodology

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Modern theories concerning black holes cannot be falsified because we cannot observe a black hole from a close distance. Popper would claim that some of these theories are pseudo-science because it cannot be falsified. If the ability to test a theory does not exist it does not mean that the idea is not scientific but if there is no way to test it then it cannot be a real scientific theory. Sismondo also says that some theories assume that certain conditions are true in order to test out their theory. In these instances, Popper’s theory of falsification would fail because the assumed conditions are not being tested but they are necessary in order to test a theory.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Karl Popper, as part of his career long attempt to support empiricism in science, proposed a doctrine of falsification. This directly contrasts verification, a central theme to logical positivism. A claim is empirically verifiable if observation and experimentation produce statements which logically imply the truth of the claim. Popper rejected the logical empiricists' ideas given that “verificationism” does not allow for claims within a universal scope to be subject to verification.1 This is because there are so many permutations of approaches to verifying something claimed by science. Opposite to this, a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.1 For example, by observing one red minivan, the claim "all minivans are…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    And even if there is an equation between religion and science it is in basal or general. Meanwhile, if examined more deeply it will make a significant difference. But it turns out though saintist assume so many things or points of tangency between religion and science. The source of science is the empirical nature. They assume that the empirical nature itself occurs without any creators.…

    • 2039 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Still, Behe’s bias disqualifies his argument from bearing the title of science. A supernatural cause is not one that can be reliably tested to any extent, and it is immune to falsifiability. Behe’s leap from natural evidence to the existence of God is a personal choice with no natural evidence to support it. If he intended to stay within the realms of science, then it would be necessary to draw a natural conclusion. One way to do this is by suggesting the Darwinian evolution mechanism is incapable of explaining the complexity of several biological complexes.…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    And lastly, creation scientists must uphold scientific theories with integrity. Ruse believes that creation scientists do not treat evolution science fairly by not upholding it to the same standard they do with…

    • 1255 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Popper discusses that it is an issue when someone considers pseudoscience to be a science. With pseudoscience, people often times support their theories by looking for confirmations instead of trying to test them for falsifiability. This happens because pseudoscience deals a lot with things that cannot be actively observed or measured. (199-202) Though these two are different, both science and pseudoscience hold great values towards an individual 's life. Nonetheless, I place more value in science than in myth.…

    • 1523 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics