What is induction Does it work
In this essay I will begin by explaining what induction actually is. Then I will highlight the difference between induction as a form of reasoning and deduction in an attempt to clarify the main 'Problem with induction'. Next I will go through a number of different philosophers attempts to deal with this problem as well as pointing out a number of extra problems with induction. Finally concluding with my opinion on how to deal with these daunting problems of induction.Induction is a form of reasoning on which most if not all of science is based. Everyday life is also heavily dependent on it. It works by drawing a universal theory from a finite number of empirical observations. A simple example of induction could be demonstrated by asking a person whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That person will, more then likely, answer 'Yes'. If you ask them how they know this to be true however they will probably say something like 'Because the sun rises every morning'. By 'every morning' the subject means every morning that he has observed. Although this example appears to be true and self evident, it is not logically correct to go from a finite number of observations in the past to a definite pred
The conclusion contains the new information that 'all swans' not just the ones that I have seen are white. We could accept tried and tested universal statements until they are falsified. He attempts to deal with it by using probability. It is important at this point to explain the difference between induction and deduction. This is the infamous 'Problem with induction'. Karl Poppers approach to the problem of induction is to offer the scientific world an alternative to induction - Falsificationism. Inductivists argue that Popper's theory just refuses to recognise the problem of induction, for if scientific theories are simply bold conjectures then there is no rational basis for believing predictions of the future. The more A continues to be associated with B the more certain it is that A will always be associated with B. A case of the scientist being innocent until proven guilty so to speak Bibliography A. Popper didn't believe that science started with observation, rather that scientists made bold conjectures and then tried to falsify them. Bertrand feels this is too harsh a criticism as it is still a useful form of reasoning regardless of the problems associated with it.
Common topics in this essay:
,
Bertrand Russell,
A's B's,
Falsificationism Popper,
Karl Poppers,
London Hutchinson,
Philosophy Oxford,
Milton Keynes,
form reasoning,
conclusion contains information,
dark cloudy day,
brick thrown window,
bold conjectures,
'problem induction',
correct ie,
attempts deal,
thrown window window,
window window,
induction form reasoning,
inductive reasoning,
cloudy day,
induction induction,
dark cloudy,
|
Acceptance Essays
