The reason for epistemologists to believe inductive logic is that this method could provide a reasonable criterion of demarcation of empirical science. (Ladyman 2005) However, a theory is impossible to be verified by experience, or in other words, never empirically verifiable. If we want find a criterion of empirical science, we must admit that statement cannot be justified empirically.
In Conjecture and Refutation, Popper(1963) took psychoanalysis as examples to point out the problem of induction. Traditional disciplines, like physics, chemistry, physiology, etc., benefit from the inductive method, but when we apply inductive method on the discovery of human behaviour, it works even more “successfully”. On the one hand, in the justification …show more content…
However, we cannot do that. In practice, we only observe enough ravens and conclude that “all ravens are black”. We assume that the ravens observed in the future resemble the raven observed in the past. We also assume that the uniformity of nature exist. That is the problem of induction. Different from induction, Popper expounded that we can use our experience to falsify one statement, like “all ravens are black”. When we observe a white raven, we can easily falsify the statement that “all ravens are black”, but we cannot justify one statement by using past experience. We can say that the statement, “all ravens are black”, is scientific, because this statement is …show more content…
A better hypothesis are very risk, since it forbids other possibility of the nature and decreases the randomness of the future, so it is somehow close to the uniformity of the nature. The truth is exclusive. A good hypothesis is also exclusive, which eliminates other possible outcomes and is incompatible with other hypothesis. Hence for a better hypothesis which is exclusive, the number of potential falsifier are numerous. The huge number of potential falsifiers represent the high degree of falsifiability and high risky. Therefore, a high risky hypothesis is the best hypothesis. For instance, “the Sun will rise tomorrow in the East” is a better conjecture comparing to the conjecture, “the Sun will rise tomorrow”. Because the former is more detailed in direction, it prohibits more possibilities and has more potential falsifiers which means the former conjecture is more risky in the future. Popper’s degree of falsifiability suggests that scientists should to construct a theory that has much potential falsifier as possible which means the theory need to be detailed and broad in
In Conjecture and Refutation, Popper(1963) took psychoanalysis as examples to point out the problem of induction. Traditional disciplines, like physics, chemistry, physiology, etc., benefit from the inductive method, but when we apply inductive method on the discovery of human behaviour, it works even more “successfully”. On the one hand, in the justification …show more content…
However, we cannot do that. In practice, we only observe enough ravens and conclude that “all ravens are black”. We assume that the ravens observed in the future resemble the raven observed in the past. We also assume that the uniformity of nature exist. That is the problem of induction. Different from induction, Popper expounded that we can use our experience to falsify one statement, like “all ravens are black”. When we observe a white raven, we can easily falsify the statement that “all ravens are black”, but we cannot justify one statement by using past experience. We can say that the statement, “all ravens are black”, is scientific, because this statement is …show more content…
A better hypothesis are very risk, since it forbids other possibility of the nature and decreases the randomness of the future, so it is somehow close to the uniformity of the nature. The truth is exclusive. A good hypothesis is also exclusive, which eliminates other possible outcomes and is incompatible with other hypothesis. Hence for a better hypothesis which is exclusive, the number of potential falsifier are numerous. The huge number of potential falsifiers represent the high degree of falsifiability and high risky. Therefore, a high risky hypothesis is the best hypothesis. For instance, “the Sun will rise tomorrow in the East” is a better conjecture comparing to the conjecture, “the Sun will rise tomorrow”. Because the former is more detailed in direction, it prohibits more possibilities and has more potential falsifiers which means the former conjecture is more risky in the future. Popper’s degree of falsifiability suggests that scientists should to construct a theory that has much potential falsifier as possible which means the theory need to be detailed and broad in