It is a general consensus that science provides rational and justified theories about the world it is studying. This is aligned with the dogma Alan Chalmers put forward: “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience […] Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge.” (Chalmers, 1976). This claim, although seemingly indisputable, has a very key flaw. That is, it is based upon induction, which is well documented to be irrational; which is where a Popperian hypothetico-deductivist will dispute the claim. The main problems a Popperian hypothetico-deductivist will have is, 1. The rationality of induction cannot be explained unless
…show more content…
There are two knowledge groups: A-priori and A-posteriori. A-priori includes all knowledge which is conceptual. They are general truths of the universe, of which, require no prior knowledge about a system or mechanism (Hyde, 2016). A-posteriori knowledge includes everything else. Hypothetico-deductivists argue that to prove something is true, an element of A-priori knowledge must be used (Hyde, 2016). The reasoning behind this is intertwined in the infinity of the universe. The data sets gathered by any researchers currently, are but pin-heads in the whole scheme of the universe. How can we prove that laws which hold true for Earth, or our solar system, or even humanities observable universe, hold true for the entirety of the universe? So, because induction uses A-posteriori knowledge it maintains its irrationality, which is the second beef a hypethetico-deductivist has with …show more content…
It is irrational to believe that just because a deductivist’ couldn’t prove their hypothesis wrong, yet, that it is an impermeable law or theory. Their scientific life, at the end of the day, only being approximately 60 years. In terms of the universal timeline, this is an embarrassingly small amount of time to try and prove something wrong, suggesting that the premises of deduction is a hopeless cause; as we may never prove a theory wrong, but who’s to say that it cannot be proven wrong at all. Thus, there is a certain element of deduction which is irrational too, which lowers the elevated pedestal of which a hypothetico-deductivist places
There are two knowledge groups: A-priori and A-posteriori. A-priori includes all knowledge which is conceptual. They are general truths of the universe, of which, require no prior knowledge about a system or mechanism (Hyde, 2016). A-posteriori knowledge includes everything else. Hypothetico-deductivists argue that to prove something is true, an element of A-priori knowledge must be used (Hyde, 2016). The reasoning behind this is intertwined in the infinity of the universe. The data sets gathered by any researchers currently, are but pin-heads in the whole scheme of the universe. How can we prove that laws which hold true for Earth, or our solar system, or even humanities observable universe, hold true for the entirety of the universe? So, because induction uses A-posteriori knowledge it maintains its irrationality, which is the second beef a hypethetico-deductivist has with …show more content…
It is irrational to believe that just because a deductivist’ couldn’t prove their hypothesis wrong, yet, that it is an impermeable law or theory. Their scientific life, at the end of the day, only being approximately 60 years. In terms of the universal timeline, this is an embarrassingly small amount of time to try and prove something wrong, suggesting that the premises of deduction is a hopeless cause; as we may never prove a theory wrong, but who’s to say that it cannot be proven wrong at all. Thus, there is a certain element of deduction which is irrational too, which lowers the elevated pedestal of which a hypothetico-deductivist places