Every person that is interested in the philosophy of Science knows about the limitations of induction. Hence you know that induction cannot grant us certainty regarding matter of facts. However it can grant us a degree of certainty relative to a sample size. For those who do not know what induction is i say; Induction is a method used by scientists that consists in observation(experience), and making genralizations from a sample size. E.g; We have only seen tigers with patterns. Hence; all tigers have patterns. Furthermore; We have only seen postive phototrophisim occur in sunlight. Hence; postive photrophisim always occurs in sunlight. Because induction is based on the number of times a natural phenomena is observed, it is known as “eneumerative induction“. E.g- I observe 20 lions with a beard. Therefore all lions have a beard. Notice, that the sample size of my observation is “20“ lions. And yet, a generalization is made about the physical appearance of all lions(that have not been observed. Hence, the problem of induction. The problem is as follows; According to the principle of induction; if we have observed a certain fact in nature many times and there are no exceptions, then it very certain that if we see it again, that we will have the same experience. However induction pressuposes “uniformtity“. However, Science cannot prove or disprove the principle of induction. And it cannot prove or disprove its belief in “uniformity“. Why? Because principles are not objects of nature. Hence, it cannot. For science is the methodological/systematic study of nature. It is an objective way of understanding the objective world and nature by, observation and testing, and the formulation of general theories and laws. The problem with induction is linked to the fact of our inability to prove that nature is uniform. In others we cannot guarantee(using scientific methodology) that what we observe today will be the same the next time we see it. Hence, all scientific data that has been derived by observation are uncertain. Hence, all scientific predictions on grounds of induction are also uncertain. Hence, all theories that have been formulated on the basis of induction are also uncertain. And hence, scientific knowledge is never certain on grounds of induction. For just because one observes hundread white swans, without exceptions, it does not mean that all swans are white. For there may be exceptions to the genralization. Furthermore one could not have observed every swan that existed or exists. Having stated this; it is important to note this; When one says that; there may be exceptions; it is an assumption as well. Why? Because it is not founded on observation. Hence, in such instances, the criticisim against induction is an assumption, just like the generalization of induction(that is used to make scientific predictions). Hence; neither assumptions can be falsified or proven by using the scientific methodolgy of 1. The recognizing and creating of a problem, 2. Deriving data by observation and 3. The formulating and testing of a hypothesis. Why? It is because(like stated earlier on), science is used to study objects of nature and not principles of mind. The principles of induction pertain to the dimension of mind and relation of ideas. Hence; Science cannot be used to study the principles of induction. However; even though induction has limitations and its generalizations and conclusions cannot be certain(only in terms of probability) no human will experiment with their lives. Imagine; obtaining thousands of subject. And then, you asked them: Are you a mortal? Well, if they are all sane, the answer would be yes. However, how do they know that the proposition(“l am mortal“) is true? Well, they can only know a prori or aposteriori. If they know apriori or if they take it for granted or if they assume, then it pertains to an idea. However, if they know aposteriori or by experience it becomes a contradiction. For to know you are mortal by experience implies that you saw yourself die. However that is both irrational and impossible. Hence, they cannot know that the proposition is true because it is contingent on sensory experience. And they cannot know that the proposition is true a priori since it pertains to a matter of fact that has been observed from dead people. And even if they reason as follows; 1. All men are mortals. 2. I am a man. Therefore; 3. I am mortal. It is not proof since they cannot prove that all men are mortals. For to prove that or if this is true then all men must be killed first. However, that includes the person who made the argument. Hence; There will no man existing to experience or see it happen. Therefore; The premise cannot be verified by experience. So, there is no way to prove that it is a fact. And even if they reasoned in this way; 1. We have only observed mortal humans. Therefore; 2. All humans are mortals. Even; if they have observed thousands of human dies, they cannot on that basis, prove with certainty that they are also mortals or subject to death as well. For they cannot prove that there are no exceptions because they have not observed the death of every human being. Hence, it is an assumption, that every human dies. Furthermore, since such a proposition pertains to the realm of matter of facts, it means that its truth is contingent on sensory experience. Hence; One cannot know its truth value prior to sensory experience. For its truth can only be know by experience just like if i stated that “an apple is green“. Hence, that “all humans are mortals“ is an apriori proposition that pertains to relation of ideas. However, the sample size regarding humans dying is a lot. We have evidence supporting the death of millions of humans and we have never observed an instance of a human being that did not die. Hence, a reasonable assumption is as follows; “all humans die“. However, such a statement cannot be proved or disproved by induction. We can only have degrees of certainty relative to induction. Hence; We can only have a degree of certainty relative to the conclusion of the proposition(all humans die). However we cannot make conclusive predictions about it regarding human nature in the future or the present. Hence, no human can know with certainty that they are mortals. And yet know human that is healthy will test to see if he/she is immortal or mortal. For even though we cannot know that we are mortals with certainty, our intuition tells us that we are and the fact that we have seen people die prevents us from testing the possibilty of the assumption. That is, the assumption that negates the proposition(“all humans are mortal“). So, i end by asking this question: Are you mortal? If so; how do you know with certainty?
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:40:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015