...h not justifiable enough to be relied. Even though the inductive reasoning has been a success in the determination of events and instances that have occurred in the past, philosophers still argue about its appropriateness, in the modern society (Earman, 2006, p.36). The problem of induction has been analyzed through various philosophical studies with the aim of finding a justifiable answer to the dilemma. The uncertainty of inductive reason forms the basis of myriad questions that engulf the justification of the approach. According to some philosophers, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon might occur, leading to justification with a known phenomenon. As aforementioned, falsification and irrationalism are some of the solutions to the induction problem. It is, therefore, imperative for individuals to falsify the beliefs through hypothesis and empirical testing.
Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, that the belief in inductive reasoning is only rational on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by an appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or assesses propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is thus, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). Yet even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there are no rational justifications for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still maintain that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in the principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly sound reasons for behaving as if the principle of induction holds true, regardless of whether or not the principle itself is rationally justifiable (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used across many of the belief systems that we as human beings hold, even stretching to the playing field of religion. In this paper I will outline not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is equally as justifiable to believe in an infinite God, regardless of whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for such conclusions.
Have you ever just sat and thought to yourself how the universe was created also what it took to create the planets and living organisms. I am explaining the definition of “Evolution” as defined by the scientist Charles Darwin. “The process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to it’s environment will help it survive and produce offspring.” Theory of Evolution which was first formulated in his book titled “On the Origin of Species” in the year 1859.
The following is a summary of the aspects of the problem of induction as presented in the Enquiry which concern my discussion.
In the early 1800's, a group of naturalists led by Captain FitzRoy, were planning an overseas trip, which they called the Voyage of the Beagle. They invited Darwin along, not as a naturalist, but as a helper. Through this trip, Darwin met many explorers that had their own theories about evolution. The first theory, which is the best known and most widely accepted one, is creationism. Creationism states that God created the heavens and the earth. Th...
Only in the past one hundred years have men finally put aside their Biblical and mythical tales about creation, and looked to the facts in order to piece together a logical explanation for the origin of mankind. In turn, men were now able to explain the enigma of their origin without the presence of a supernatural being responsible for their creation. At the head of a slew of men trying to uncover logical reasons for mans derivation was Charles Darwin. Darwin was the most accomplished of these men because he was able to put forth a logical conjecture that was based upon facts and observations. This theory, for a short time, was able to end the feud among educated men because many now put their trust in this new “theory of evolution”. Unfortunately, this revolutionary new theory threatened the religious beliefs about creation and soon a new rivalry emerged between the creationists and evolutionists.
In Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ the theory of evolution argues that the appearance of design in creatures are favourable chance mutations that have developed over time. Species have adapted to their habitats over a period, possessing many unfavourable traits that have slowly diminished over time due to not being able to survive in that particular environment (Darwin 1906: 97). Darwin’s theory has posed multiple problems for the Christian doctrine of creation, from the effect it has had on the concept of intelligent design to undermining the idea that humankind was made in the image of God. Nevertheless there are a handful of theistic counter-arguments to contest the theory of evolution but many lack legitimacy and evidence as it has
In the early 1840s, the main principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution were formulated by the mechanism of natural selection; however, he did not publish it. Although evolutionary theory sprouted in many places, Darwin rejected the publication of his theory, and it was not until 1859 that he published “On the Origin of Species” (Darwin, 1859).
Reasoning is used all the time, humans use evidence of someone, something or personal experiences through time to reach a logical conclusion and accept it. In science, there are two methods of reasoning in which scientist arrive with a conclusion about a specific topic and it is by induction and deduction. In the modern scientific method induction seems to be a key element, based from specific observations and experiments. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is used in the scientific method to test hypotheses and theories in which the conclusion must be logically valid. Each of these methods of reasoning make an important contribution to our understanding of the world. This essay explains the processes of induction and deduction and their role in the modern scientific method, as well as ‘Problems of induction along with Popper’s ‘solution’ to induction through falsification will be discussed due to his rejection of inductive reasoning in the scientific method.
The inductivist account of science recognizes five steps that are essential to scientific progress, and consequently, the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. First, scientists compile a large body of facts from observation and experiment. Using the principle of induction, these facts can, often with severe logical difficulties, be generalized to form the basis for a theory or law. Then, once a theory has been developed, scientists can use the theory as part of a valid logical argument to make new predictions or explanations of phenomena. According to Chalmers, the inductivist account has “a certain appeal” to it, namely, that all of scientific progress can be seen as the result of a linear, highly structured inductive scientific method (54). “Its attraction lies in the fact that it does seem to capture in a formal way some of the commonly held intuitions about the special characteristics of scientific knowledge, namely its objectivity, its reliability, and its usefulness” (57).
...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.
(Sanger 1921). Dr. Herr remarks that, “the premises in inductive reasoning are usually based on facts or observations”. (Herr 2007). She makes inductive reasoning when she makes the point of following Christian following is worthless if one cannot trust a women with the knowledge about her own body. (Sanger 1921).
Evolution is something that is talked about frequently throughout people’s education, it is probably first brought to people’s attention in middle school more than likely. “The science of biology is very broad in scope because there is a tremendous diversity of life on earth… the source of diversity is evolution, the process of gradual change during which new species arise from older species” (OpenStax). According to OpenStax, “the term for where new species arise from older species is adaptation.” Which makes sense because, people always hear the most fittest are the ones to survive while the weak die. This where the term natural selection comes into place, according to The Recluant Biologist, “not all members are the same – within any population there is a variation in the physical characteristics of the individuals… Darwin reasoned that if some of these variants provide the individual with a slight edge over their competitors in the
It is important to distinguish forms of reasoning in science in order to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. This essay will explore the concept of the scientific method and how it utilises inductive reasoning, followed by an exploration of Karl Popper’s argument that when scientists explore their ideas through inductive reasoning, they make it impossible for science to hold any more credibility than pseudo-science. This will then be followed a dismantling of Popper’s argument and deductive reasoning proposal on the basis that inductive reasoning is justified, falsifiable, and allows for scientific progress.
I will explain Hempel’s Raven Paradox in regards to the way it effects the philosophical project of making sense of how science works and its problems of induction. I will address and explain Hempel’s Raven Paradox, I will also demonstrate how the Raven Paradox works in regards to science. I will explain what a strong inductive argument is, what a weak inductive argument is, what induction is and how that effects making sense of how science works, within this I will explain what deduction is as well so there will be a knowledge of the meaning of both induction and deduction in finer detail. I will use the example of the Paradox and it’s proposed questions within the process of generalisation and falsifiability. I will also use examples derived from other philosophers view on induction from my readings of their work.