What is this thing called science? Ch. 4 (A)

(Originally written October 28, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called Science?
Alan Chalmers

Ch. 4 - Deriving theories from the facts: induction

Introduction

How can scientific knowledge be derived from the facts established (if they can be established by science) by science?

If we take "science is derived from the facts" in a logical and not a temporal sense we can call science: theories derived logically from the facts. (But this strong claim cannot be substantiated.

Baby Logic

Logic is basically concerned with deriving a conclusion from premises.

Valid logical argument:
All A is B
t is A
Therefore, t is B.

Logical validity means that a conclusion is derived from the premises.

Logical deduction does not establish any bit of truth or falsity, even if the argument is valid.

Valid does not equal truth. Invalid does not equal false.

Logic alone is not the source of new truths.

Can Scientific laws be derived from the facts?

Scientific knowledge cannot be derived from the facts if derivation is taken as logical deduction.

Deductive arguments cannot establish scientific laws.

Any number of observed facts cannot create a universal fact through deduction.

Inductive arguments, as opposed to deductive arguments however, can produce scientific laws.

What constitutes a good inductive argument?

Derivation in the statement "science is derived from the facts" must be understood in an inductive sense.

Not all generalization from observable facts warrant an inductive qualification.

If an inductive inference from observable facts to laws is to be justified then some conditions must be satisfied:
1. The number of observations forming any generalization must be large
2. The observations must be repeated under a wide variety of conditions.
3. No accepted observation should conflict with the derived law.

A good inductive argument does not jump to conclusions.

The principle of induction:

"If a large number of A's have been observed under a wide variety of conditions, and if all those A's without exception posses the property B, then all A's have the property B" (Chalmers, 47).

The vagueness of the word "large" is problematic for induction.

What is a variety of conditions? The ambiguity of the second condition of a good inductive argument is problematic.

Inductive arguments also pose an infinite regress problem. If knowledge is based on inductive arguments then those inductive arguments are based on other inductive arguments, etc., etc., etc.

No exceptions (condition 3) is also problematic because there is rarely ever a complete lack of anomalies.

Further problems with inductivism

Inductivism is the school of thought that holds scientific knowledge is derived from observable facts through some form of inductive derivation.

It is not clear what exactly induction entails because of the ambiguity of its criteria.

Science refers to many things that are unobservable (i.e. DNA, electrons, protons, etc.)

If induction is deriving something from observable facts, how can inductivism say anything about unobservable things?

True inductivists would have to reject much of contemporary science if they strictly adhered to the inductivist handbook.

Inductivism faces the problem of induction. How is the principle of induction itself to be justified?
1. Logic?
2. Experience?

Logic is wholly inadequate for inductivism. Inductive inferences are not (by design) subject to deductive logical rules. Hence, inductivism cannot be justified by logic.

If inductivism is to be justified by experience the argument would be as follows:
1. Induction worked in case "X"
2. Induction worked in case "Y"
3. Induction worked in case "Z"
4,5,6...
Therefore, Induction always works.

This is also unacceptable. Inductivism cannot find its justification in logic or experience.

The attempt to justify induction via experience involves assuming what one is trying to prove.