Comparative Analysis Of Inductivism And Falsificationism Environmental Sciences Essay

There are two major concepts that tell us about the progress of science. Both have different views that how the science has progressed and is progressing. In this essay the introduction, detail comparison and advantages of one philosophy on the other is discussed.

Falsifiability is a major concept. To prove any postulate as falsifiable, there should be any observation or there should be any experiment that disagrees with the postulate. For example, there is a common thinking of all that all crows are black. To violate this thinking we will have to show any crow that is not black and is of any other color. So, by showing the any example against the existing postulate that is proved by observation or experiment, the existing postulate can be rejected and this helps to progress in science. The school of thought that terms the falsifiability as a philosophical rule is known as Falsificationism.

The approach of inductivism towards the science is that the progress of science is based on the empirical observations which are expressed in the form of theories. Moreover, the observations made should be large and should be repeated under the different conditions and any of the observation should not conflict with the results. Following these criteria, the final results are considered as true and are included in the science but there is a problem with this procedure because in some cases the number of observations can be made to a large number. For example, we cannot put our hand for the many time to conclude that fire burns. Due to the requirement of large number of observations and change of conditions, the process of inductivism contributes very slowly in the progress of science.

Inductivist methodology assumes that the series of true statements yield a general universal statement. For example, if we say that this bull has four legs and then we say that bull has four legs and so on and concluding from this if we make a general and universal statement that all bull has four legs. But this universal statement can be falsified by showing a bull that is having less than four legs. Some scientists believe that science is developed by using the inductive approach.

Falsificationists believe that science progresses by confronting with the problems and making the making the hypothesis or solution to the problem. If the proposed solution of the problem is correct one then it does not mean that theory itself is true but we can say it an improvement to the existing theory. We cannot say that the new theory is true but it is a improvement in the existing theories. Whenever a theory or hypothesis is falsified by observation or experiment and a new theory is proposed that replaces the existing one. Thus, falsification helps to make progress in science by violating the existing theories.

It is very common and known to all that eyes are used to see the world. But if we consider this observation into our account then how bats are able see at night while they are having very small eyes. This was the little problem and for the search of the appropriate solution, bats were monitored in the close room that was full of obstacles while their eyes were covered by some way. But bats still flied well. The hypothesis that bats see with their eyes is rejected after the experiment and a new question rose how bats are flying in such environment. In response to this problem, the hypothesis proposed was that bats can use their ear to fly safely. For the verification of this proposed hypothesis, bats are again allowed to fly in the room which was full of obstacles. Again bats uses to fly perfectly. Hence again, the hypothesis that bats fly well by use of their ears was rejected and question was to search that how bats can fly and it was concluded finally that bats are sensing the echoes that are reflecting back after colliding with the obstacles. Based on the echoes, decisions are made to fly well. Hence the falsification of the problem and search for the new hypothesis is devoting in the progress of science.

On the other hand the inductivist’s approach is different than that of falsificationists. Inductivists believe that scientific knowledge is derived from given facts. They are giving a factual foundation to science. They also claim that there should be logical relationship between the theory and the observation statement that is confirming the theory and ignores the historical foundations. This result in an attitude of constantly seeking for the observations that confirms a theory more and more while in turn contributes less and less in the progress of science.

Comparison of Falsificationiam and Inductivism

Attribute

Falsificationism

Inductivism

Facts and Results

Recognizes that facts as well as theories are fallible.

Uses Facts and results to give Science a factual and unproblematic Foundation.

Seeks

Only Constant Improvement in Science.

For truths.

Factual Basis

Not a big problem

Big problem

Settle

For progress

For truth

Advantages of falsificationism over inductivism :

Indutivists believe that science is unproblematic but as we can see many cases where some facts after their experimental results are proved to be fallible. These facts are theory dependent. This approach where facts and theories are fallible is recognized by the falsificationists. The inductivist has to give the explanation of truth which can be a severe problem. On the other hand falsificationist works only for the constant improvement which is easy to do and does not create problem.

There were no specific criteria for industivist that facts support the theories, so they had difficulty to explain such kind of circumstances. The falsificationists handle such kind of situation by conducting severe test which lead to support theories. The repetition of such test helps better to the falsificationist to support the theory which is not possible in the empirical approach where facts do not support the theory. If the experiment is carried out properly and the theory is proved to be right even after the successful performance of test, so the repetition of same experiment is not considered to be much severe. Falsificationist tests the unobservable knowledge and explores their novel consequences whereas the inductivist fails to explain that observable knowledge can ever be derived.

On the whole, we can say that falsificationism has advantages over inductivism because testing a fact helps in improving a theory to its predecessor theory. Falsificationists believe that science is free of induction and in fact it is helping science for progress whereas inductivism works by seeking truth and is not contributing to progress in a rapid way.