Bacon dedicated his philosophical writings to putting forth arguments for induction, and empirical methods, which persist today and are widely used in modern science. He would argue that the authority of natural science comes from empirical observations and the usefulness of the axioms that are extrapolated from those observations. In essence, the authority of science, according to Bacon, stems from his method of “true and perfect induction.” All other methods would be subject to opinion and error of interpretation. One cannot start at general axioms, they have to start from specific and interpret their way to general axioms, and therefore induction is essential for the accurate interpretation of nature.
The claim that general principles must come from axioms, and axioms themselves must come from “sense and particulars,” is made multiple times. Beginning with the concrete will avoid mistakes. He argues that science should progress “regularly and gradually from one axiom to another, so that the most general are not reached till the last.” Each axiom is tested by observation and experiment before progressing further, and in this way, one can trust and rely upon the progress made by his method. This method is designed to avoid the errors he perceived in other methods, namely that proceeding from general axioms to smaller truths tended to lead to inaccurate intermediate axioms. By moving from general to specific, one risks a false general axiom disproving the entire logical extrapolation, and ruining the work. It is not possible to come to a true conclusion if the premises on which the reasoning is based are false. According to Bacon, only the tedious method of observation and experimentation can provide factual stability for scienti...
... middle of paper ...
...uch as instinct or intuition, largely form the hypotheses themselves. Science has never perfectly followed Bacon’s method of gradual and regular extrapolations. Indeed, simply the inclusion of hypotheses in the scientific method is going against the inductive method. Hypotheses themselves are general principles, making them deductive in nature, while the observations that lead to someone forming hypotheses would be inductive. Gathering data to test the hypothesis would be inductive as well.
The authority of natural science is in part derived from the scientists themselves, in which case, trust plays a large component. Bacon’s method does not eliminate the need for this trust, however it does allow for a little more confidence in the conclusions in that one can know that if they were reached using Bacon’s method, there is a lot of empirical support for each axiom.
Based on his declaration, some may think that he was representing all of the people in Virginia. Bacon insisted that his declaration was for the people, but there was not much evidence to prove his claim. The declaration may have suggested the economic and social status of his followers were lower-class by referring to them as “Comonality” (Bacon's Declaration in the Name of the People 30 July 1676). This term could mean that the majority of the people were not
...nown, trained minds will build toward universal knowing, that is that the end of the work. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the religious content within the world. Knowledge may arise from inspiration. This was Bacon’s perception on the human mind.
The final step concludes the experiment but it does not show “whether a hypothesis is accepted or refuted, because both of the results advance scientific knowledge” (4). If experiments did not fail then people would not know what is correct. “After all, we would not know which paths are best for advancement if all paths were not ventured” (5). “Replication is vital to science. It helps make science a self-correcting system” (6). Science is reliable because the experiments produced have been replicated by many different scientists for validity. Many scientists had to repeat experiments multiple of times to reach the correct and understanding methods. For example, “in 1838 Schleiden said that all plants were made from cells. In 1839 Schwann said all animals were made from cells, and in 1855 Virchow said that all cells come from other cells.” (7). Science is always developing and it involved three different scientists to reach one conclusion that makes up the cell theory: “All living things are composed of cells. The cell is the basic unit of life. Cells arise from pre-existing cells”
There is a modest version and a robust version of descriptive philosophy of science. The aim of the modest version is the historical reconstruction of actual evaluative practice. Given that scientists preferred one theory (explanation, research strategy...) to a second, the modest descriptivist seeks to uncover the evaluative standards whose application led to this preference. For instance, the modest descriptivist may seek to uncover the standards implicit within such evaluative decisions as Aristotle's rejection of pangenesis, Newton's rejection of Cartesian Vortex Theory, or Einstein's insistence that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Pursuit of a modest descriptive philosophy of science may require a certain amount of detective work, particularly for episodes in which the pronouncements of scientists and their actual practice do not coincide.
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
Idealizations and approximations like point-masses, perfectly elastic springs, parallel conductors crossing at infinity, assumptions of linearity, of "negligible" masses, of perfectly spherical shapes, are commonplace in science. Use of such simplifying assumptions as catalysts in the process of deriving testable predictions from theories complicates our picture of confirmation and disconfirmation. Underlying the difficulties is the fact that idealizing and approximating assumptions are already known to be false statements, and yet they are often indispensable when testing theories for truth. This aspect of theory testing has been long neglected or misunderstood by philosophers. In standard hypothetico-deductive, bootstrapping and Bayesian accounts of confirmation, idealizations and approximations are simply ignored. My focus in this paper is on how the basic Bayesian model can be amended to reflect the role of idealizations and approximations in the confirmation or disconfirmation of an hypothesis. I suggest the following as a plausible way of incorporating idealizations and approximations into the Bayesian condition for incremental confirmation: Theory T is confirmed by observation P relative to background knowledge
Klein, Jürgen, "Francis Bacon", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
In the AOK of the natural sciences, having a skeptical approach can be quite beneficial. The natural sciences utilizes extensive methods in which they come to conclusions about the information presented, based on the various experiment...
Although these two methods of reasoning conduct different approaches in the scientific method, both finalise in the deve...
In Chapter 21 of Worldviews, Dewitt introduces the phenomena of scientific laws and their contribution to the scientific revolution in the 1600s. I found the debate between scientific laws and laws of nature very intriguing, as I hadn’t considered them separate. Dewitt explains that laws of nature define the fundamental way the universe works and scientific laws approximate the consequences of the laws of nature. In short, laws of nature are the phenomena and scientific laws describe observations of the phenomena. This notion made me consider Francis Bacon’s idea that while it may be true we can never really “know” anything, that sort of thinking isn’t exactly advantageous. To remedy this, we accept the way the universe works (laws of nature)
The Method of Hypothesis also known as Hypothetico-Deductive Method, does work better than the Method of Induction as it avoids its shortfalls and fits the scientific practice as it is more reliant on deductive reasoning. With this method one has the freedom of introducing any hypothesis and it is accepted if it is confirmed by empirical evidence. This works because when it is confirmed it is done in an objective manner that relies on empirical evidence and this means the way in which the hypothesis itself formed will not be of importance, so if it was a dream or an instinct all that matters is if the evidence will confirm it, even if the hypothesis was discovered by accident. The method will look at the hypothesis tested but it will also look at the auxiliary hypotheses (the helping assumptions) that helps in making observations. So unlike the Method of Induction we are considering other possibilities and we are using the auxiliary hypotheses, our observations as a result are made with purpose and are selective as they directly relate to our hypotheses and the auxiliary
Induction is the practice of drawing general conclusions based on particular experiences. While this approach is important to empiricism and the scientific method, there is always something uncertain about it, because we may get new data that are different and that challenge our previous conclusions. The principle of induction teaches us that we can predict the future based on what has happened in the past, which we cannot. There is a premise that says that the only way to justify induction would be to give a deductive argument or to give and inductive argument. However, according to Hume, there is not a deductive argument that can do this task. Hume’s supports this by saying that a conclusion that is false is likely to contradict the truth
Also, presuppositions, which are basic for the starting of science, are at ultimate instance based on empirical knowledge (do not offer a scientific justification). There can be no science without scientists making various very general suppositions that, because of their special nature, could be called presuppositions. One shall single out the two main presuppositions. First, the principles of logic such as modus ponens (4). The truth of these principles, however, cannot be proved based on arguments that only have premises
The first reason to why science can be trusted is the method or process that they use. The process that scientists use is called the scientific method and consist of multiple steps.Step One is Posing a Question which allows scientists to give a more specific finding. Step Two is Form a hypothesis which allows scientists to give an educated guess on what will happen and see if what people think is close to what the actual answer is. Step Three is Setting Up the Experiment which allows scientists to figure out the end result of the question being asked. Step Four is Reading The Data which allows scientists to determine the answer and figure out why that was the answer. A piece of evidence shown in class about this method should be trusted is when we looked at the different variables that can occur during a scientific process. The scientific method takes this into account and can be proven invaluable when performing a scientific process.
With his method of radical skepticism, Descartes escaped a chain of assumptions built on dogmatic “results” and laid a new foundation for science rooted in observation and experiment. Dissatisfied with the qualitative evidence of Aristotelian syllogisms, Descartes sought to avoid building on assumptions by promoting criticism and rigorous review of hypothesis, which could them be pieced together mathematically to develop scientific theory. While Descartes left a framework that continues to drive modern science, some of his most fervent beliefs presented in Discourse on the Method have been abandoned to make way for a pragmatic view of sciences role in explanation.