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
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