Philosophy of Science

[ryanatau]

Anyways, I don't think there is much debate that these problems exist. However, there is debate about the answer to these problems and whether they have been answered at all. The two most common answer to the demarcation problem are presented by Karl Popper and the other by Thomas Kuhn. Popper believes science is demarcated for non-science through the process of falsification. Popper believed that scientist put their theories to the test and they either pass it, only to be tested again and again latter, or the are falsified. He say non-science does not do this, instead if contradictory evidence is presented non-science does not throw out a theory it creates an ad hoc hypothesis.

Kuhn disagrees and saying that some non-science can be falsified and science is just as guilty of ad hoc hypothesis as is non-science. Instead Kuhn say science operates within a paradigm or a set of rules that all scientist accept. Inside this paradigm scientist attempt to solve problems with the given laws.

It is also clear what Popper's solution to the problem of induction is--simply science does not use induction. An posit relying on induction would look similar to this:

S observes 100 Ps
all 100 Ps are X
Therefore all Ps are X

Popper beleives it actually happens like this:

If P, then X
Not X
Therefore, not P

So theories can be proven false, but never affirmed.

Carl Hempel answer this question similarly to Popper, but beleives P can be confirmed:

If P, then X, X1, X2, X3...Xn
X, X1, X2, X3...Xn
Therefore, P

Notice this is invalid deduction, but Hempel does not believe that matters. Others answer the problem of induction by simply say "it does not matter it has work so far."

Basically, I am wondering what others believe is the answers to these problems, if any. To be honest I have no idea what the answer is.

[Alive]

I have thought for a long while that the problem of induction is just a specific case of a more general problem in logic. No system can ever be "proven" by means other than circular reasoning, no matter what the specifics of the reasoning system or definition of proof within the system. This can be demonstrated thusly:

1. Consider any system S
2. What "proves" S as a valid system?
3. Either a) S "proves" S or b) some other system, S2, proves S.
4. If a, S is proven circularly
5. If b, go back to step 1 with S2
6. You can repeat steps 1-3 and 5 ad infinitum; 4 must be hit to stop the cycle
7. All systems can only be proven circularly (or from other systems which themselves were proven circularly, which is really the same idea)

Deduction is in fact worse than induction because deduction isn't really even proven circularly, it isn't proven at all, but just accepted axiomatically.

The silly implication, I guess, is that the problem of induction isn't really a problem because any other system we come up with for finding knowledge suffers from the exact same problem, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves (what makes Popperism "valid"? That it hasn't been falsified? But that's circular, since Popper is the one who came up with that criteria!).

The skeptical implication is that since all systems will have this problem, no system is valid, and all knowledge is impossible. This is the stance I happen to take (in a rough sense) and I will defend it against intelligent counterarguments if anyone has one.

[ryanatau]

So, do you believe in the pragmatic theory of knowledge then? It seems that would fit with your previous statement about faith.

[Alive]

Quote by: ryanatau So, do you believe in the pragmatic theory of knowledge then? It seems that would fit with your previous statement about faith.

Not exactly. I believe in the evolution theory of human behavior, by which I mean I think human ideas and actions evolved for fitness purposes and not to give us understanding of reality, which in turn means we have no way of checking the reliability of any idea. We tend to think things to be true so far as such a truth-belief would benefit human evolution (though this is obviously not perfect; study evolution for a better understanding).

Put another way, philosophy as a subject of study, as well as science in general, assumes neutral observers, while people are not neutral but rather evolved; moreover, evolution is not random but biased in the extreme (to increase fitness). Therefore, not only is truth difficult to find, but it is difficult to find in specific extreme ways which will necessarily distort our understanding. The idea that we can work out logic "objectively" with our evolved capacities may have been a good ad hoc assumption in the 18th century but provided we accept the theory of evolution, it seems extremely unlikely today.

All this, admittedly, has very little to do with the problem of induction, but that's where I'm coming from.

[qwert18]

Science without Humanity | Science, Technology, One, Love, Physical