|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: If you are unfamiliar with Realistic Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge), it is suggested you read An Introduction to Epistemology, or at least read What is Philosophical Realism? before reading this essay. by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
The Inductive Method It is the purpose of empirical science to discover the causes and laws of natural phenomena. This is done by induction. There are various phases that empirical science goes through to establish truth and these are generally known as inductive methods. These include observation, the establishing of hypotheses, and experimentation. Observation Observation is the close scrutiny and examination of natural occurrences in order to determine their causes and effects. There are two operations involved here:
Let's consider the meaning of the terms that appear in the second operation just described. The term "invariable sequences" refers to a series of events taken sequentially, that is, one after the other, where the events occur in an invariable manner. Event "A" is followed by event "B" and event "C" follows event "B." The "antecedents" are events which occur prior to a central event and the "consequents" are events which occur after a central event. For example, event "A" is antecedent to event "B" and event "B" is consequent to event "A." It is important to realize, however, that not all "invariable sequences" describe a causal relationship. For instance:
It is only our intellect that can distinguish a cause from a simple sequence in the physical connection of events. Our physical senses, such as sight and hearing, are capable only of apprehending the sequence of events. The intellect does rely on the senses to provide it with the "facts" of any events in question and assumes, for the most part, that the data provided by the senses are accurate. But it is ultimately the intellect which must make the judgments and draw the conclusions regarding the events in question. We all know, of course, that our physical senses have their limitations. There is only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can perceive. Human beings are able to perceive ordinary red light, for instance, but are unable to perceive infrared light. The naked eye can perceive large objects in our ordinary world but fail to see the extremely small bacterial organizations which play such a prevalent role in our bodily existence. Since our physical senses have their limitations, and we recognize this, we and professional scientists realize that these limitations are an important factor in our observation of physical events. Our intellects may be impeded in our search for physical data about our natural world. Fortunately, mankind has been able to invent instruments which extend our senses into micro-worlds not immediately apparent to our naked senses. The invention of the microscope and the telescope are just two examples that spring to mind. Three important things are present, therefore, in any observation that may be called "scientific" in any sense. We have the sense data which is provided by our ordinary physical senses. We have the intellect which must take this data, make judgments, and draw conclusions. We can be assisted by mechanical instruments which extend our ordinary senses into realms which are immediately unknown to us. Through the use of these three factors, empirical science has made tremendous progress in adding to human knowledge. Observation, as careful and complete as it can be performed, is a vital method of induction. Establishing Hypotheses A second important factor in induction is the formation of hypotheses. A hypothesis can be defined as a provisional explanation of a phenomenon, based on probable arguments, until verified (or disproved) by subsequent evidence. It is the guiding norm in experimentation. A hypothesis is not just a guess, a "hunch," or an arbitrary opinion. Any good hypothesis has some basis in fact. It is justified, provisional explanation for some event in the natural world. There are two kinds of hypotheses: the hypothesis of cause and the hypothesis of law. Let's take a look at both of these. This is a hypothesis which is used to establish the causes which contribute toward the production of a phenomenon. You are probably familiar with many examples of this type of hypothesis. For instance:
This is a hypothesis used in an attempt to explain the manner in which the causes of a phenomenon operate. The cause may have already been discovered. Now the scientist wants to know the way in which this cause operates. It is also possible that the specific cause alludes the scientist but he wants to know the law operating in the phenomenon. For instance:
Hypotheses are generated as possible explanations based on the observation of certain physical events. But in order to verify a hypothesis as possessing some degree of certainty, more must be done. Further observation is necessary, of course, but so is an important task of empirical science called "experimentation." Experimentation Experimentation is the observation of phenomena under selective and controlled conditions. Ordinary observation yields much information about our natural world. Observation by itself, however, is of limited use in helping discover the causes and laws connecting the facts observed. For this reason, experimentation is very important in empirical science. There are two notions which dominate the procedure of experimentation: the negative principle and the positive principle. There is a "negative" principle which states: Whenever a phenomenon can occur without a certain antecedent being necessarily present, this antecedent is in no way the cause of this phenomenon. This is hardly surprising. Every effect, as we have learned, must have an adequate cause. Without it, it would not have sufficient reason for its existence. An event in nature is an effect and it would not occur if no cause was present. If an event occurs, its cause must be present. So, when a certain antecedent is not present and the event occurs anyway, the "supposed" antecedent can not contribute to the production of the event and is not its cause. There is a "positive" principle which states: Whenever a certain antecedent must be present, so that the phenomenon in question will not occur without it, this antecedent is the total or partial cause of this phenomenon. Like the negative principle, this is also hardly surprising. Physical causes are necessary causes. When physical causes operate, they must produce their effect. If the presence of a specific antecedent is necessary for an event, that is, the event cannot occur without it, it can only be because the antecedent contributes in some necessary way to the production of the event. The presence of the antecedent is required as a cause. Conversely, if this specific antecedent were not a real cause of the event, there would be no reason why the event could not occur without its presence. It is necessary in experimentation for the scientist to eliminate all extraneous and nonessential factors involved in the experiment. Experiments must be varied and tried again and again. A scientist may perform hundreds of experiments, eliminating one antecedent after another, and still fail to find the cause of a particular event. One hypothesis after another may be discredited and thrown away. Such is the exhausting and tedious work of modern empirical science. The Stages of Certainty in Induction Here is a summary of the various stages an empirical scientist generally goes through when he uses the inductive method.
Rules for the Inductive Method A hypothesis must be verified if it is to add to scientific knowledge. Once a hypothesis is shown to have a high degree of certitude, it is no longer considered merely to be a hypothesis. It is now genuine knowledge in the form of a law of nature or a scientific theory. There are certain rules of induction which are used in science to aid in proving or disproving hypotheses. These rules have been aptly formulated by the philosopher John Stuart Mill. These rules will merely be given briefly here for those who are interested in a more intimate acquaintance with the inductive methodology. If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon. if an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one occurring only in the former: the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon. If two or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one circumstance in common, while two or more instances in which it does not occur have nothing in common save the absence of that circumstance: the circumstance in which alone the two sets of instances differ is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon. Subduct from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents. Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation. To The Nature of Scientific Research
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.