Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Popper and Induction

Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hi just a quick one that has been bugging me.

    I know that inductive reasoning is not all that solid even in strong form. I think it was David Hume who first objected to induction? Is that right?

    So when Popper proposed his criteria of falsifiability to solve the demarcation problem, was this his attempt to bypass the inductive method in scientific reasoning also?

    Inductive reasoning would say:

    All swans ever observed by science have been white

    So

    It is a general law that all swans are white

    Popper would say:

    We can try and falsify that theory by looking for more swans and observing their color, but we must deny such a general law exists, rather it is rather to be considered our best guess, until such time as we find a non-white swan and it is falsified.

    So this gets around having to rely on induction, and we must live with doubt about our general laws?

    But the problem is that even innocuous observations such as observing the colour of swans, are theory laden and so products of other processes of induction? Is this right?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snozzle)
    Hi just a quick one that has been bugging me.

    I know that inductive reasoning is not all that solid even in strong form. I think it was David Hume who first objected to induction? Is that right?

    So when Popper proposed his criteria of falsifiability to solve the demarcation problem, was this his attempt to bypass the inductive method in scientific reasoning also?

    Inductive reasoning would say:

    All swans ever observed by science have been white

    So

    It is a general law that all swans are white

    Popper would say:

    We can try and falsify that theory by looking for more swans and observing their color, but we must deny such a general law exists, rather it is rather to be considered our best guess, until such time as we find a non-white swan and it is falsified.

    So this gets around having to rely on induction, and we must live with doubt about our general laws?

    But the problem is that even innocuous observations such as observing the colour of swans, are theory laden and so products of other processes of induction? Is this right?
    Popper's falsificationism was an attempt to show how science wasn't really inductive at all, yes. It has various failings and is pretty unanimously rejected nowadays, though.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 5, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.