Blog

Exploring the Philosophy of Science and its Applications

- by Tim Kousemaker

In this series of articles, I will try to cover some basics of philosophy of science and how it connects to some scientific/societal topics which we encounter on a daily basis. It is this connection that I think is very interesting for an IEM student, as we like to look at things in a broad perspective. I hope to share with you the ability to (critically) look at modern-day science and societal topics from a different point of view, in a manner which until now has received little to no attention in our curriculum.

The first article will cover inductive reasoning; what it is, why we use it and what the ramifications are from a theoretical and practical perspective. Future chapters will be dedicated towards applications. Please note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive overview or extensive in-depth analysis, but a basic introduction.

Chapter 1: The Problem of Induction

As we live our daily lives, we often make use of inductive reasoning. This type of reasoning revolves around making assumptions and/or drawing conclusions based on a set of empirical observations. An example would be the following: you move to a new location and see one of your neighbors walk his dog around 8:30 pm for a couple of Mondays straight in a row. Most of us would then assume that the neighbor walks his dog around 8:30 pm, or at least on Mondays around that time. Basically we connected a couple of dots and extrapolated these; something we do on a daily basis as it is a powerful tool to try and make sense of what is happening around us. Beware though, the truth of such conclusions is not guaranteed. This becomes obvious when in our example when our dear neighbor one day does not walk his dog around 8:30.

Alternatively, we can make use of either deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning, but here we will limit ourselves to deduction. This type of reasoning differs from induction, in the sense that it is based on statements and ultimately leads to a logical conclusion which is certain. A nice example of this type of reasoning can be found in mathematics; if subset B is part of A, and C is part of B, then C must be part of A. We deduct the final statement from the original statements.

Now, why is this interesting or good to know? First of all, most of the time we do not deal with certainties, which means that deductive reasoning is unfortunately not possible in many cases. It is therefore crucial to understand that the basis of science and our own daily lives is founded by using inductive reasoning. Fortunately for us, many notable philosophers have spent a considerable amount of time discussing inductive reasoning and the issues related to this reasoning.

David Hume and Karl Popper have both thoroughly written about induction. Hume started off with the exploration of causal relationships and how these are derived through induction. He goes on to state that so-called “matters of fact” follow from causal relationships. If causal relationships follow from induction and matters of fact follow from causal relationships, then we need to find something that validates induction. He tried to achieve this by arguing that induction assumes a connection between the observation and conclusion/hypothesis. He then identifies the problem in justifying induction: if we cannot find a deductive justification for induction, then induction is based on an inductive assumption about the connection and as such leads to circular reasoning. Apparently, induction itself cannot explain the connection.

The problem with induction now, is the fact that it questions all empirical claims, and as such the scientific method, and how knowledge is generated. Furthermore, the proper application of inductive reasoning may be distorted by confirmation bias for example.

However, in the 20th century, Popper came with a response and tried to solve the challenges we face when using induction. He gained recognition for his view on generating knowledge and improvement by trying to refute hypotheses. According to Popper, science does not use induction, but uses experiments and observations to reject or refine hypotheses. He argued that it is not important to justify theories, but to find errors in theories and correct these. As such, in order to generate knowledge and refine theories, it is important to try and falsify theories in order to improve these. This implies we cannot positively prove something to be true (the apple falls from the tree, hence newton’s law is true), but we have to find a case which our proposition cannot explain. In this case, we have not had a scenario where objects do not fall towards the earth, hence it is generally accepted that the current theory is accurate.

So to conclude, induction provides us with a powerful tool to construct hypotheses, but it is susceptible to being erroneous. A short introduction on Popper’s view provided us a method to circumvent the problems associated with inductive reasoning. In the next Chapter I will briefly introduce Popper’s antagonist, Kuhn, before venturing into modern-day examples such as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).