In this essay, I will compare Sir Frances Bacon’s method of inductive reasoning to its counterpart, deductive reasoning presented by Euclid.
Induction is the process of getting the empirical truth which involves the four sources of knowledge; memory, sense perception, introspection, & reason. Induction starts from sense in primary objects. Deduction, on the other hand which is truth based upon rational thought, allows us to use a hypothesis, and examine all possibilities until a logical conclusion can be formed so those things which are true can be classed. In short, the conclusion of inductive reasoning at best can only be probably true whereas the conclusion of deductive reasoning is always necessarily true.
Bacon introduced a new system of “true and perfect” induction which he proposed as both the essential foundation of scientific method and also a necessary tool for the proper interpretation of nature. Bacon although an analytic, designed this new method to differ from the classical methods of induction Aristotle and other philosophers formed. “As Bacon explains it, classic induction proceeds “at once from . . . sense and particulars up to the most general propositions” and then works backward (via deduction) to arrive at intermediate propositions.” (Simpson) One major mistake Bacon noticed with the classic method of induction philosophers such as Aristotle formed was that if general principle proves false, all the intermediate principles could prove false as well. “And, though these affections are necessary as various as are individual conditions, yet the method must be such that the ultimate conclusion of every man shall be the same, or would be the same if inquiry were sufficiently persisted in.” (Peirce) One contradicti...
... middle of paper ...
...ng his own proofs.” (UKEssays)
In conclusion, neither method is better than the other, nor is there a “right” or “wrong” method. We use both methods everyday as we rationally think or wonder about something. We relate our past experiences to new ones which seem to have similarities as past events which is induction. We also, perform experiments and order things according to logic to reach a conclusion which is deduction.
Works Cited
Dobson, Kevin E., and Jon Avery. Ways of Knowing: Selected Readings. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1994. 63-75. Print.
"The Life And Work Of Euclid Philosophy Essay." The Life And Work Of Euclid Philosophy Essay. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Macphee, Kona. "The Origins of Proof." Plus.maths.org. N.p., 1 Jan. 1999. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Simpson, David. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Bacon, Francis . IEP, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Rowlands, Mark. The Philosopher and the Wolf . New York : Pegasus Publishing , 2008.
Hobbes and Smart, both well-known and respected philosophers and writers, produce the ultimate examples of good sources. It is in their writing that any scholarly researcher searching for anything philosophical in nature can find a reliable, complete derivation of knowledge. As stated before these publications are relevant to my term paper in a much more involved way than the superficial. It is the underlying beliefs in each one of these philosophers’ viewpoints that provides me with a strong foundation to build my thesis on and subsequently my term paper.
Milton, J. R. "Induction before Hume," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1987): 49-74.
Inductive reasoning is a process of applying logic in which conclusions are made from ideas, which are believed to be true most of the time. It is based on predictions and behavior.
(14) W. James, Some Problems of Philosophy: A beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green adn Co., 1924)
ABSTRACT: Indeterminacy theories, such as Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy principle on rules and language and Quine's indeterminacy of radical translation, raise some fundamental questions on our knowledge and understanding. In this paper we try to outline and interpret Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy, and then compare it to some other related theories on indeterminacy of human thinking, such as raised by Hume, Quine, and Goodman.
...fore, I can conclude that my laptop will persist in the future. We can think that we justified our belief by providing these two premises as reasoning. However, we justified it though induction and Hume states that we have no reason in believing into the inductive argument. Our argument becomes a weak one, since the second premise is unsupported. The problem of induction raised by Hume is challenge to justified true belief account because it shows how our inductive argument about the future and unobserved does not provide a good support. Therefore, we cannot get a justified belief by applying inductive principle.
Fieser, James, and Norman Lillegard. "7." A Historical Introduction to Philosophy: Texts and Interactive Guides. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. 339. Print.
In this book, Samir Okasha kick off by shortly describing the history of science. Thereafter, he moves on scientific reasoning, and provide explanation of the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. An important point Samir makes, is the faith that humans put into the inductive reasoning
David Hume is a very famous philosopher for the methods that he takes to attack certain objects that he has a strong opinion on. He is the type of philosopher that will attack some of the simple things that we accept as humans and have grown to believe over time. He questions the validity of these arguments in regards to the methods that one took to arrive at their desired conclusions. He most notably takes a deeper look into induction and generalization. Induction is basically moving from some type of fact to formulate a specific conclusion about something. Generalization, on the other hand, is making broad assumptions on things usually with insufficient evidence. These two distinct points are the basis of David Hume’s argument expressed in, “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” The main question that he poses is whether inductive reasoning overall can lead one to gain knowledge.
Aristotle saw logic as a tool that led to probing and eventually to explanations through argumentation rather than deductions alone [6]. In Aristotle’s view, deductions were not sufficient to lead to any type of validity, and most certainly not in the sciences, where arguments should “feature premises which are necessary” in order to avoid false suppositions [6]. He insisted that because science “extends to fields of inquiry like mathematics and metaphysics,” it is essential that not only facts had to be reported, but also explained through their “priority relations” [6].
Nash, Ronald H., (1999). Life‘s ultimate questions: an introduction to philosophy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530.
In conclusion, the advancement of these three philosophies from the theological Puritan views to the great scientific and reason ideals of the Enlightenment showed how a reform of beliefs and ideas resulted in the progressively modern ethics that our society is based on today. Scientific reasoning of the world ignited ideas that the ignorant society of the Puritans was immensely closed-minded about. These ideas gave way to how we explain how things happen through the use of science and reasoning. Though Puritans saw that this great reform was a blasphemy against God, the Enlightenment expanded different beliefs of religion which furthered societies intellect and understanding of religion. “The Age of Reasoning” was a radical new concept of human intellect that forever changed the ideas of our country which developed into who we are today.
Hume in his work ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’, after challenging the possibility of knowledge of cause and effect, posits that “The conclusions we draw from … experience are not based on reasoning or on any process of the understanding”. If it is indeed true that there is no rational basis for our acceptance of inductive reasoning, there is also no objective way to assess its validity. How do we gauge which inferences are acceptable and which are not? If it is completely arbitrary, why do we instinctively reject certain inferences as faulty?