ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Scientific Method: The Logic of Deductive Reasoning & Inductive Faith?

Updated on August 24, 2011

Science, Philosophy & a New Religion?

Science can be defined as being the systematic study of nature, based on experience and the observation of facts, and the association between these facts. Chalmers(1976) identified the commonly held view of science with the statement “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge.” A popular systematic approach to scientific research is the “scientific method”, a basic recipe that scientists follow when developing their scientific laws and theories. It is a process that has drastically changed our knowledge of our world and the universe since its introduction in the Seventeenth Century and has had the effect of distinguishing science from other sorts of knowledge (such as philosophy or religion) as the only reliable form of knowledge. Some of the main principles that characterize the method are empiricism, induction, deduction, prediction, and verification. Most scientists today conduct their research using one or more of these distinguishing characteristics, although there are those who question the reliability of the knowledge that is produced by this method, and some who argue whether scientific thought should be set apart from other sorts of knowledge, particularly philosophical thought. Yet I wonder if (for us mere mortal non-scientists) just how much difference there really is between science, philosophy and religion.

The scientific method was designed, and its use initiated, in the 1600’s by scientific revolutionaries such as Galileo, Newton and Francis Bacon . These pioneers of a more modern view of science argued that scientific knowledge should be based on experience and observation (empiricism) and not on faith or intuition (which are the basis for religious and philosophical thought), and its theories derived from these facts by a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning, rather than from entirely deductive logic. It was these views that led them to develop the scientific method.

A typical recipe for the scientific method would be:
1.Observe - To obtain knowledge through observation and experience is called empiricism.
2.Hypothesize- To hypothesize is to suggest an explanation for an observed fact(inductivised generalizations).
3.Predict - Scientists predict what will happen and under what conditions(deductions) based on their hypotheses.
4.Verify - Scientists verify their predictions with experimentation.
5.Evaluate- Consider results of experimentation and predictions to determine whether the hypothesis was valid.
6.Publish- Allow others to test and verify results, and to improve original hypothesis.

For an idea or theory to be accepted as scientific knowledge it must be tested repeatedly by experimentation and consistently found to be true.
It must be able to be proven or unproven, a concept labeled falsification by Karl Popper. This verification through experimentation is one of the characteristics that supposedly sets science apart from other forms of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, or the arts. There is no experiment in which ideas in philosophy can be proven to be true, no method for determining what feelings an artist is trying to express in a painting, and no way of concluding whether or not a poem or song is correct. They cannot be falsified. They are considered to be a representation of an individual’s personal opinion of reality (as is any interpretation of them), and therefor not scientific.

This distinction between science and other forms of knowledge is also evident when we look at how science progresses. New discoveries in science expand or replace old theories, whereas new works of art or literature do not replace old ones. The scientific method uses both inductive and deductive reasoning in the formation of scientific laws and theories. Inductive reasoning is a process in which a generalization is drawn from particular experiences or observations. Scientists use induction to form new theories. Deductive reasoning is a process whereby a specific, logical conclusion is drawn from general premises. Scientists use deduction to correct and improve existing theories. It is therefore a combination of induction and deduction that gives science the ability to progress and improve as new ideas and theories expand or replace old ones.

There are those who would question the reliability of the knowledge produced by these methods, in particular the generalizations concluded by induction. The main argument is that how can one justify generalizations that are based on a finite amount of instances (Chalmers, 1976). The validity of this argument can be seen if one thinks back to the conclusion that was prematurely drawn by Europeans a few centuries ago that ‘all swans were white’. This inductivised scientific "fact" was of course shattered by the discovery of black swans in Australia.

On the other hand, we have deductive logic in which a scientist will make a valid deduction based on a previously inductivised generalization. The problem here is that the validity of a deduced prediction is not dependent on whether or not the preceding generalization is actually true. It could in fact be false in which case the logically valid deduction would also be a false statement. In contrast to this argument one could conclude that although there is no guarantee that the knowledge produced by the scientific method and the principles that characterize it is accurate, it is more than likely that it is so (Chalmers, 1976). To be honest, this sounds a bit philosophical to me.

So now we come to the question of whether scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge should be considered totally separate forms of knowledge. Here I would like to point out a few things:
1. Empiricism, which is considered to be the heart of the scientific method, is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.
2. The “scientific revolutionaries” who devised the scientific method were not all pioneer scientists. Sir Francis Bacon was indeed a philosopher.
3. Scientists could not reach some of the conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning without being somewhat philosophical in the first place. Any assumption that cannot be falsified would have to be a philosophical assumption, and many assumptions made by scientists today are very hard to prove, especially ones made in the fields of physics or cosmology.

To look at things a bit more seriously we can consider the views of Richard Morris (1990) in his chapter on Physics and Metaphysics. The main point he puts forward is that “philosophical ideas do play a role in scientific thought, and are indeed sometimes incorporated into scientific arguments”. He describes what he calls “Strong and Weak Anthropic Principles”, defining them by quoting the following statements made by British physicist Brandon Carter “What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers”(weak principle) and “The universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage”(strong principle). He explains the first statement by saying “In other words, if the universe did not have the properties it does, we would not be here to see it” and the second by saying “In other words, a universe that does not have the potential for the creation of life is impossible”. Once again we see examples of scientific theories that would be impossible to prove. I conclude that science and philosophy are quite closely interconnected.

Science is a demonstration of man’s ability to think logically. Its laws and theories are based on fact whether or not they are factual in themselves. The use of the scientific method in the production of these ideas gives science an edge over other forms of knowledge, and will continue to do so whether or not scientific knowledge is accepted as being reliable. Scientific progress has led to improvements in medicine and technology as well as advancements in warfare, and has greatly increased our knowledge of almost everything in the known universe. It has also affected philosophical thought, and I dare say for some, religious thought as well. Science is a form of knowledge beyond the grasp of most everyday people. Many concepts and theories are too complicated for some to even consider trying to understand. Instead we place faith in our superior minded scientists to produce knowledge that we can rely on. To me this seems as though we have inadvertently developed another religion, although I doubt many would actually be persuaded to admit or accept this. So while there can be no doubt as to the impact science has made on modern society, both beneficial and detrimental, and no denying that the majority of people place great faith in it (despite those who claim it cannot be rationally justified), one must question how distinguishable it is from other branches of knowledge such as philosophy and religion. After all, to take a philosophical stance, I must say that scientists are only human, and nobody is perfect.

Reference List:

Chalmers, A.F., “Inductivism: Science as knowledge derived from the facts of experience,” in
What Is This Thing Called Science, Brisbane:Queensland University Press, 1976,
pp. 1-21.

Dauben, Joseph W. , “Science” in The World Book Encyclopedia, 1988, vol.17, pp. 191-204.

Schagrin, Morton L., “Deductive Method” in The World Book Encyclopedia, 1988, vol. 5, pp. 84
– 85.

Schagrin, Morton L., “Inductive Method” in The World Book Encyclopedia, 1988, vol. 10, p 240.

Morris, Richard, “Physics and Metaphysics” In R.Morris, 1990, The Edges of Science, New York:
Prentice Hall, pp 209 – 223.

W.W.Bartley III, “Empiricism” in The World Book Encyclopedia, 1988, vol.6, p262.

Please Note:

All names in this article have been changed for legal purposes and to protect the privacy of the Author. Except where otherwise credited, or where text forms part of an external link, this article is under the following copyright:

Copyright © 2010 Mel Stewart, "safe-at-last", of Perth, Western Australia. All rights reserved.


All persons, places and objects shown in the images in this hub are are shown for illustrative purposes only. They bear no relation to any real person or event. All persons shown are paid models. Unless otherwise credited, all images are under the following copyright:

Copyright © 2010 Mel Stewart, "safe-at-last" and Licensors Nodtronics Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    conradofontanilla 4 years ago

    The Hub has some generalities with overlapping meanings. "Any assumption that cannot be falsified would have to be a philosophical assumption." This is misleading. There is a statement of fact that is neither true nor false that Bertrand Russell calls law of excluded middle. This statement has not proof in the past and may take a long time in the future to prove it. At the same time it has no evidence in its favor presently and may take a long time to have evidence against it. It does not graduate into a philosophical assumption in the meantime. "Concept" is mixed up with "theory."

    "Science is a demonstration of man’s ability to think logically. Its laws and theories are based on fact whether or not they are factual in themselves." The meanings of "fact" and "factual" are ambiguous.

    "Once again we see examples of scientific theories that would be impossible to prove." This is contradictory. By definition a scientific theory is one that had been proven. A hypothesis is different in that it is a scientific guess that remains to be proven. A theory, said Einstein, consists of concepts and relationship(s) between concepts. The concepts are right and the relationships had been verified or had been deduced correctly. I have Hubs "How to test a free radical hypothesis of rheumatic heart," "A Theory of Salk Vaccine: How do the shape and size of killed polio virus incite immunization?" I have another on the Big Bang theory, origin of the universe, what is the mystery?

  • f_hruz profile image

    f_hruz 6 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    The desire for a rational outlook on ones life and a solid foundation for a better understanding of reality brings us closer to wanting to learn more about how we can apply scientific thought to our own existence.

    While it is true that most scientists are only human like the rest of us, it's not a good argument for keeping your own mind from unfolding to it's fullest.

    The value of understanding the basics of scientific thought comes in part from the structures various sciences provide which makes theology part of the philosophy department, and natural sciences quite distinct from such faculties of science which may not require as much mathematics as physics or astronomy.

    One thing I am quite sure of, our ability to be more rational is not being assisted by mind polluting social influences such as nationalism, consumerism and religiosity.

    It would be of great help to many, if they could struture their own way of thinking to gain some basic undestanding of how much power their thoughts derive from their own emotional reality so as to expand their intellectual ability a bit more and introduce basic ideas of objectivity, critical observation and some degree of analytical evaluation to their every day way of thinking.

  • tonymac04 profile image

    Tony McGregor 6 years ago from South Africa

    Very well-researched and well-written Hub. Very interesting.

    Thanks for writing this.

    Love and peace

    Tony

  • Jane Bovary profile image

    Jane Bovary 6 years ago from The Fatal Shore

    Hi s-a-l,

    Thankyou for that interesting and well-written read,

    I would add though, that the philosopher still has to provide a rational basis for believing something. Unlike the theologian, who is already working on [rationally] unjustified assumptions[such as God exists] .

    It;s true we do put our faith in science but then, in theory at least, we could check a scientific theories out for ourselves...whereas there is no way to prove or disprove a religious claim.

    Cheers

  • loua profile image

    loua 6 years ago from Elsewhere, visiting Earth ~ the segregated community planet

    First let me thank you for sharing your work, it was very thorough with all the elements discovery... The problem with wisdom knowledge and understanding of the unknown is it is treated as though it is unknowable; by self defeat... You see one cannot know if all the perspectives are not observed. The actual solution answers are three dimensional composed of physical, metaphysical and spiritual awareness..

Click to Rate This Article