Karl popper made his contribution on the induction theory in Vienna during the period of Logical Positivism despite the fact that he was not a Positivist. Before Popper’s contribution, Hume, another philosopher had already critised the theory of induction saying that the theory could not provide rational support for their conclusion (Karl, Raimund P. , 2002). His argument was based on assumption that induction assumes unobserved events which follow the pattern of observed events and ultimately it could not be logically justified whether it was deductible or in-deductible(Nelson, 1992).
Hume justified that the theory of induction does not hold since it’s not logically true (Marc, 2000). Later Karl Popper supported Hume’s opinion on induction theory by fact that it could not give amicable solution but disagreed with Hume’s suggestion that science yield no knowledge of the nature of the world. On Popper’s side, he strongly felt that induction theory can be replaced by the principle of conjecture and refutation. On the experimentation of conjecture, it’s not possible to give positive inductive reasons for thinking that they are true while we can give justification of thinking that they are false.
To experiment this scenario we take Poppers deductive method of conjecture and refutation principle together with induction principle to test scientific hypothesis. We can determine the expected results if the hypothesis is true, we can say the hypothesis is inductively confirmed if our observation agrees with our expectation while using induction theory. Such criteria of reasoning is not deductively correct, hence as an inductive argument, it faces the problem of induction. It therefore provides a convectional justification that ‘H’ is true. And, given this and the truth of the first premise, ‘0’ would follow.
But ‘0’contradicts ‘not 0’which is asserted by second premise. From the hypothesis we can conclude that its not possible for premises to be true and conclusion be false. Popper’s method of conjecture and refutation provide us with the global knowledge to avoid the problem of induction. Karl Popper also asserted that there is no rational method that can be used to evaluate scientist’s justification about the hypothesis, further, there is no sufficient and appropriate evidence that can inductively confirm the hypothesis, that it can give us a positive reason to think that our hypothesis are true.
Popper Karl contributed too in improving the meaning theory by providing an alternative solution to positivist verification which sorted out the demarcation issues (Nelson, 1992). Before the invention of Positivist verification there was a major problem in differeciating legitimate scientific inquiry from aspects such as religion and pseudo science. His methodology of conjecture and refutation still provides another basis for distinguishing ‘science’ from ‘non science’ since it enables us to take a hypothesis to be scientifically investigated if and only it’s falsifiable (Karl, Raimund P. 2002).
For a hypothesis to be false we only highlight any likelihood observable conditions under which one can judge to ascertain to be false. To justify that it is false that all crows are black, we must state some realistic observable situations. By so doing we can categorically be certain that it is surely false, in case we observed a white crow. So, the assertion that all crows are black can be scientifically investigated. Also for a claim that opium makes sleep since it has normative virtue.
This is a pseudo-scientific explanation since it’s not possible to state any observation for us to ascertain it is false. It will not be realistic and permissible to assume for instance, that the total population in Texas is 50 people (in millions) while in actual sense its 45 million people. The presumption would only be having some degree of truth which could be realistically correct to around 0. 9 percentage of the total population which can be inherited with questionable justice. If for instance to say that Jack is ‘borderline tall’ so that ‘Jack is tall’ is assigned the value 0. , then there could be a necessarily falsehood that ‘Jack is tall but not very tall’ to get a value of 0. 5.
The most definite disadvantage for relying on such logistics is that they do not dispense with any sharp transition for they only accommodate very gradual heap to non heap at the very expense of exposing a sharp transition from heap to borderline, and from bounder line to non-heap (Catherine, 1997). This can be illustrated by the problem of higher-order vagueness as below Its shows from the above scenario that we avoid assigning more precise numerical figures as degree of truth since such assignment will not have any substance either (Karl, Raimund P. , 2002). This is because true statements ought to be somehow differeciated from true statements or to treat them as neither true nor false, and categorize them as those which could become true or false (Marc, 2000). Goodman was for the idea that no answers which neither nor justifies limitations of induction. This is because we can satisfactorily distinguish between deductive and in-deductive.
This is what made Goodman make tremendous efforts towards formulating canons off inductive interference which had to emphasize on ‘Emerald1 is green and Emerald 2 is green’. Goodman’s new riddle approach on induction indicates that this is a false step since not all instances are confirmed by their instances. This pioneered the invention of the predicate ‘grue’which is defined as; an object is grue only and if only the object is (1) green, and has been observed before now,or (2),blue, and has been observed before.
Such definition gives a clear definition by the condition on when the word ‘grue ‘applies to an object, nevertheless it creates a problem when used inductive argument. If experiment 2000 green emeralds it provides sufficient evidence of believing that both the next emerald to be experimented will definite be green after observation, and that it will be blue, but this is absurd, to this assumption will worsen the scenario because inductive theory has weakness with the word grue and possibly with inductive arguments involving green
Grue, if in the first instance presumed to be illegitimate for it makes reference to a particular time and it’s defined by the outcome color of an observation if observed at the moment. This makes it appear to be artificial while in actual sense it natural which makes its use an illegitimate inductive arguments. By defining grue in of two more other predicates that is green and blue which are not very simple and elaborative makes it unusual.
Goodman has also highlighted that differences between properties of being grue and green which is dependent for them to be restricted to properties. In analyzing evaluation techniques in Goodman‘s New Riddle of induction he ascertained that the bold techniques are most likely to attain the goal of reliably arriving at the most right answer, while the most skeptical technique does not at all mean that in skeptic there is violation of canon of rationality or may be false to recognize nature uniformity.
The theoretic learning analysis wholly concedes to be skeptic regardless the many ravens observed in the past, the next one could be white(Catherine, 1997). The rationality of this is that if all observed ravens are generally black, the skeptic doesn’t answer the question that all ravens will be black.
In generalization of emeralds where green and blue colors were used Nelson puzzled about new riddle induction by performing the following experiment: supposing that all the examined emeralds before a particular time y are green, our evidence statements indicates that emerald n is green and so on……examining another spices which is less familiar than green it is the predicate ‘blue’ and this could mean that it applies to all items which were examined before y just incase they were green but to other things just incase they are blue.
In such scenario the challenge is to we should conjecture that all emeralds are green rather than that all emeralds are grue when we obtain a sample of green emeralds examined before. We can still analyze induction theory in making projections, for instance a natural projection rule which conjectures that all emeralds are green as long as only green emeralds are found, and grue, some rule which keeps projecting the next grue predicate consistency with available evidence (Peter, 2003).
The theory of meaning from philosophers’ analysis has been difficult to come up with a very clear definition of meaning theory this has been generally because meaning can only be specified by its wording and syntax. This is because only words or marks put on a paper can generate a meaning. Sentence is a composition of prepositions which indicate satisfactory conditions to make each sentence correct. Aspects such as beliefs, hopes and intention which explain speaker’s nervous system are found in the context of language.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX