Enrique Sarabia Sánchez - personal identifier: G6533073
TMA 04 - Part 1 - Word limit: 1500/2000 words
Does Popper’s method of conjecture and refutation solve the problem posed by induction?
In this essay, I will present how induction was set in motion by David Hume, which posed a
challenge whose aim was to initiate a process of scepticism about a wide field of beliefs that
were already pre-established and considered as knowledge. In the following, I believe that the
philosopher David Hume is wrong in considering that it is not possible to formulate this kind of
conjecture about future experiences, and I will confront him with the philosopher Karl Popper.
David Hume argues that conclusions from past experiences applied to future experiences are not
logically grounded, since they are identified by inductive reasoning. This is an inefficient
procedure compared to deductive reasoning. The theory of empiricism is that knowledge comes
only from our senses. This implies a procedure for moving from knowledge of a particular
group of objects to knowledge of a joint and general connection, a process known as induction.
Normally, as human beings, we believe that the readings we make can substantiate certain
expectations, as well as general assertions that transcend what we have observed. Deductive
reasoning relates to the logical processes of drawing concrete conclusions from a general
theory, for example, deductive reasoning would be:
- Premise 1: Karl Popper is a man,
- Premise 2: all men are mortal,
- Conclusion: therefore Karl Popper is mortal.
(Chimisso, 2011, p. 51).
The rational process of concluding certain observations is considered inductive reasoning. An
example of inductive reasoning would be:
Premise 1, all cars I have seen so far are fast,
In conclusion, all cars are fast.
An inductive argument of this style can include genuine premises and still yield a false
conclusion, it is a mere hypothesis since the outcome is somewhat probable; hence it is known
as the inductive leap (Cottingham, 2012, p.433). According to Cottingham (2012), David Hume
greatly disturbed the world of philosophy with his ideas about the rationality of science. Hume
argues that induction is a form of reasoning without justification because, when individual states
"I have found in all past cases, such sensible qualities united to such secret powers, and by
saying that similar sensitive characteristics will always be joined to similar secret powers" is not
the responsibility of stating the same idea twice with different expressions, nor do these
statements manifest a judgement at all. Hume argues that "one proposition may be said to be an
inference from the other" (Cottingham, 2012, p. 436). The science of physics provides a certain
degree of certainty which is known as exact sciences, the sciences have become a benchmark of
knowledge in the modern world; they are seen as the most obvious success story in terms of
finding truth (Chimisso, 2011, p. 64).
Inferences are cases where information is obtained through the senses and related to what has
been learned from one's own experience. Science usually makes inferences through phenomena
that have been observed to assert that certain phenomena in the world have not been observed
and cannot be observed. They cannot be observed not because of a practical limitation, as in the
case of dinosaurs being extinct, but gravitation, which is inferred from the observed data of
falling objects, cannot be observed in principle. Hume holds the idea that one cannot know the
relations between different matters through reason, so that "all reasoning concerning matters of
fact seems to be based on the relation of cause and effect" (Cottingham, 2012, p.433).
Now that I have discussed David Hume's thoughts on induction, I will briefly outline
philosopher Karl Popper's method of induction reasoning and how it has contributed to the
acquisition of greater knowledge.
Karl Popper argues that induction has no place in the logic of science itself as it is based on a
deductive procedure in which hypotheses and theories are formulated and tested by scientists
TMA 04 - Part 1 - Word limit: 1500/2000 words
Does Popper’s method of conjecture and refutation solve the problem posed by induction?
In this essay, I will present how induction was set in motion by David Hume, which posed a
challenge whose aim was to initiate a process of scepticism about a wide field of beliefs that
were already pre-established and considered as knowledge. In the following, I believe that the
philosopher David Hume is wrong in considering that it is not possible to formulate this kind of
conjecture about future experiences, and I will confront him with the philosopher Karl Popper.
David Hume argues that conclusions from past experiences applied to future experiences are not
logically grounded, since they are identified by inductive reasoning. This is an inefficient
procedure compared to deductive reasoning. The theory of empiricism is that knowledge comes
only from our senses. This implies a procedure for moving from knowledge of a particular
group of objects to knowledge of a joint and general connection, a process known as induction.
Normally, as human beings, we believe that the readings we make can substantiate certain
expectations, as well as general assertions that transcend what we have observed. Deductive
reasoning relates to the logical processes of drawing concrete conclusions from a general
theory, for example, deductive reasoning would be:
- Premise 1: Karl Popper is a man,
- Premise 2: all men are mortal,
- Conclusion: therefore Karl Popper is mortal.
(Chimisso, 2011, p. 51).
The rational process of concluding certain observations is considered inductive reasoning. An
example of inductive reasoning would be:
Premise 1, all cars I have seen so far are fast,
In conclusion, all cars are fast.
An inductive argument of this style can include genuine premises and still yield a false
conclusion, it is a mere hypothesis since the outcome is somewhat probable; hence it is known
as the inductive leap (Cottingham, 2012, p.433). According to Cottingham (2012), David Hume
greatly disturbed the world of philosophy with his ideas about the rationality of science. Hume
argues that induction is a form of reasoning without justification because, when individual states
"I have found in all past cases, such sensible qualities united to such secret powers, and by
saying that similar sensitive characteristics will always be joined to similar secret powers" is not
the responsibility of stating the same idea twice with different expressions, nor do these
statements manifest a judgement at all. Hume argues that "one proposition may be said to be an
inference from the other" (Cottingham, 2012, p. 436). The science of physics provides a certain
degree of certainty which is known as exact sciences, the sciences have become a benchmark of
knowledge in the modern world; they are seen as the most obvious success story in terms of
finding truth (Chimisso, 2011, p. 64).
Inferences are cases where information is obtained through the senses and related to what has
been learned from one's own experience. Science usually makes inferences through phenomena
that have been observed to assert that certain phenomena in the world have not been observed
and cannot be observed. They cannot be observed not because of a practical limitation, as in the
case of dinosaurs being extinct, but gravitation, which is inferred from the observed data of
falling objects, cannot be observed in principle. Hume holds the idea that one cannot know the
relations between different matters through reason, so that "all reasoning concerning matters of
fact seems to be based on the relation of cause and effect" (Cottingham, 2012, p.433).
Now that I have discussed David Hume's thoughts on induction, I will briefly outline
philosopher Karl Popper's method of induction reasoning and how it has contributed to the
acquisition of greater knowledge.
Karl Popper argues that induction has no place in the logic of science itself as it is based on a
deductive procedure in which hypotheses and theories are formulated and tested by scientists
