Theory Of Knowledge essay

Ruth Haines

For some people science is the supreme from of all knowledge. Is this view reasonable or does it involve the misunderstanding of science or knowledge?

In today’s society, science is regarded as being the most trusted form of knowledge, leading to many claiming it to be the supreme form of knowledge. To investigate whether or not this is justified we must compare science to other forms/areas of knowledge and consider what they each contribute.

The strongest argument science has to claim this title, is the objectivity and empirical nature of its method and in particular its verifying processes; mainly based on inductive and deductive reasoning. Modern science is closely related to inductive reasoning and is presented as a distinctive feature of scientific activity today. Induction works by verification: correspondence process, which involves making predictions about the future based on past experience. However, problems with this technique limit the validity of the conclusions drawn from it. Primarily the problem is the degree of accuracy attached to any conclusion made, which is tied to the number of observations that confirm with it. Likewise, the appearance of a single observation that does not conform to the general law invalidates the conclusion. In comparison, Deductive reasoning is a more accurate verification technique, as it does not allow for ‘degrees of accuracy’. It works through verification: coherence process, which involves formulating a general law which becomes standard and by which any further examples are judged against.

Eventually scientists have come to realise the methodological problems with these two techniques of verification. In an attempt to eliminate these fundamental errors, scientists have attempted to incorporate the fundamental aspects of inductive and deductive reasoning, whilst also attempting to eliminate their major flaws. The most prolific of these adapted verification processes are the Hypothetico deductive model, a modern formulation associated with famous scientists such as Popper and Hemple. It works by using a combination of both verification techniques, claiming that what distinguishes scientific hypothesis from a non-scientific hypothesis is not its origin, but the formers capacity to stand up to testing. The name comes from the claim that the starting point is the hypothesis, from which we can predict that particular events will occur under particular circumstances. This prediction is a deduction from the initial hypothesis, and if events occur as predicted then the hypothesis is confirmed. Confirmation of the hypothesis is inductive, simply because if the hypothesis holds true x number of times, we claim that it always will hold true. This confirmation of the hypothesis process is the part of the model that encompasses inductive reasoning, as when using this method one only has access to a limited number of events.

Join now!

Although the Hypothetico model was developed to incorporate advantages of both types of verifications, by using inductive reasoning as confirmation processes, it is still affected by the fundamental flaws of inductivism and basic criticism of the original scientific model. Questions such as, Why is it legitimate to assume that things will continue to behave as they always have done?, continue to be ignored and affect the validity of any conclusions drawn using this technique.

In response Karl Popper suggested a further model that could possibly eliminate these. Popper believed that the solution was to deny that inductive reasoning ...

This is a preview of the whole essay