Inductivist method of science is based on inductions or suppositions that are reached using the scientific method. The use of experiments and direct observation is used when coming to a conclusion with scientific induction.
- In theory attainment the use of scientific method is as follows: the experiment is conducted and the result is observed. The results are then used to produce and develop theories that will center on determining what will happen in most or all cases.
- When obtaining predictions the process is analyzed, as well several possible outcomes using several variables. Predictions base themselves on theory and hypothetical results.
Theory attainment is the search for the result, a definite statement that will be used to apply to many cases. It is a general “law” that can predict what will happen with a particular set of circumstances and conditions. Obtaining predictions is using the theories to come up with new possible situations. It is theoretical-hypothetical reasoning before the result is tested. As with “inductivist turkey”, theory attainment is the gathering of observation, analyzing the conditions. The turkey’s recording of the day of the week and weather conditions was the collection of evidence. The outcome—a theory that every day feeding is at 9am. And then the turkey obtained a prediction that tomorrow he will get fed at 9am also. But this did not happen since predictions are not facts.
The most general definition of the principle of induction is that it is the basic assumption that whatever is seen, judging by the entity’s appearance, then it is presumed to be real, otherwise it will be found and regarded as an illusion. Prescriptive principle prescribes how the world or result should be. It defines the frames of the conditions and limits the outcomes to one that should be. Normative principle is somewhat based on prescriptive and supposes a moral value. This explains what something is—good, bad, right or wrong.
The Inductivist principle supposes results based on observation. Observations are based on senses. One problem is that the amount and type of information received through senses is limited. There are many particles and entities that the senses cannot see, feel or experience. Another limitation is the perspective that can be taken in the analysis of a supposition. Every person views things differently and the perspective is unique to the viewer. The differences in the acknowledgement of one’s own senses and the ability to interpret and comprehend the senses become an individual difference in the uptake of the stimuli.
Hume’s critique of induction is based on the premise that no one has the ability to assume that nature or happenings will have a “regular” character, that is, be the same and stable in the future. He argues that an observer cannot reasonably suppose that when the object stops being observed, it will not change its form or any other attribute. There is no rational or logic inference to make about something that cannot be seen. Comparing to Nature, Hume states that the fact that something was regular before, does not prove and determine that it will be regular further into the future. Thus, such an assumption is unreliable and unverifiable.
It is said that “induction is the only method we have” but it is too general to describe the process of reasoning that humans are capable of. The mere observation and then rationalization of the fact does not mean that there are not other ways to comprehend something. For the most part, people use induction to function in the society but it is general and topical. While the understanding of concepts and norms of the society and the way it is run, is on a deeper level of consciousness, which is not simple induction but a gathering of feelings, understanding and genetic presupposition.
Hume says that: “it is rational to be rational” but to define rationality one must define the conditions under which this “rationality” is set up. Some circumstances might make rationality different for different people. The culture, tradition and norms set up the criteria for rationality. Rationality is based on personal understanding of the surroundings and thus, it is not concrete. In comparison to logic, rationality is more a guideline and “best obvious choice” characteristic.
Descriptive claims create doubt in relation to the scientific method. The first one is that the descriptive method of induction bases itself on moral and ethical knowledge and not on scientific data. This comes into existence without experimentation. Second, there are no absolutes in descriptive methods, so scientific laws and generalizations will not apply. And third, it often describes subjects that are impossible to quantify scientifically. The knowledge or objects are in themselves complete and would not be produced in the result of experimentation or theorizing. This answers for the unique quality of the object and the understanding someone has in relation to its characteristics.
The first descriptive criticism of the inductivist account is that nothing can be factually supported. For an induction to be made it must be based on facts and evidence and using the induction methods it would be impossible to gain full understanding and knowledge of the subject. The second one pertains to the morality of inductivism. There is no guarantee or eternal stability in the moral ethics and so, it is not precise. The third criticism is based on the fact that the process of knowledge attainment should be a process and the society is always changing, so it would be indefinite to attach a finite result or conclusion to something that is ever-changing.
Kepler was not able to physically go and make the calculations and observations first hand. He used an inductive method to calculate and structurize the laws. The process of him gathering the evidence and making the calculations was the attainment of the theory. The establishment of scientific laws was reached through calculation and rational reasoning, which in turn were registered through senses.
Newton’s laws were tested by experiments and so, are considered to be the scientific method of induction. The laws of Nature were not created by men and Newton observed, registered and theorized on the physical laws of the world.
First level inductivism is just the beginning stage of acquiring knowledge. The experiment or observation is carried out and the possible theories are offered. Hypothetico-deductive method bases the reasoning on an already existing knowledge. The hypothesis is based on several theories and then, using these suppositions a deduction is made, which creates an even further chain of reasoning.
Reasoning where successful prediction is used to verify a theory is called Definite Presupposition. It is based on concrete facts that are logical and rational. Thus, the outcome of the prediction is most likely guaranteed, as it is based on hard evidence and factual knowledge.