In philosophy, induction is ... The William Wewell Induction Theory

Deductive and inductive methods of cognition are the most common both in logic and in philosophy. They can be viewed in different ways. On the one hand, these are techniques that facilitate the ability to logically derive new information from the one already available. On the other hand, they are described as special methods of cognition. Let us consider their difference and features of such a mechanism for the emergence of generalized information, as induction.

Philosophy: the basic concepts of various techniques in cognition

The word "deduction" in Latin means "deduction". That is, when from any general, abstract knowledge a transition is made to its particular or specific form. Induction is translated as "guidance". That is, it is associated with the generalization of some particular knowledge, the results of experience or research. In philosophy, induction is, as a rule, a method of obtaining general judgments from experimental data. It is believed that deduction gives more reliable knowledge if its premises are true. It is more convincing, and on this reception of knowledge the European science, especially mathematics is based. And induction only "leads" to the truth, helps to find it. It has a probabilistic nature and, as a rule, its result is the creation of hypotheses. This is the so-called incomplete induction. It is a kind of this method of cognition. If a certain statement can be proved for all individual cases, then we are dealing with complete induction. In mathematics, as a rule, deduction is used. However, it is called an inductive method. It's all about the name of the special axiom on which this technique is based.

An excursion into the history of antiquity

In philosophy, induction is a method of cognition, which was born with the teaching of Socrates. But his understanding of this technique was different from what is known to us now. He called the method of comparison and exclusion, when in the study of particular cases too narrow definitions were dropped, and their general value was found. With the emergence of the teachings of Aristotle changed all of ancient Greek philosophy. Induction was first defined as the principle of finding general knowledge from particular elements. He defined such reasoning as dialectical. The great philosopher called induction the method opposite to the syllogism. He considered deduction to be the main principle of obtaining knowledge.

Renaissance

What happens at this time in philosophy? Induction is the basis of real science, Renaissance figures believed. They were very critical of Aristotle, because on his theories scholasticism was founded, which they considered obsolete and inhibited the development of science. Particularly radical in this regard was Francis Bacon. He believed that deduction is a support for words and signs, and if the latter are incorrectly formulated, then all the knowledge based on them does not make sense. He proposed to make generalizations from scientific discoveries, and not to explain them, based on the available theories.

Induction in the "New Organon"

It is interesting that, despite all the hostility with Aristotle, Bacon practically followed his principles. He also contrasted induction with syllogism, and called his main work "The New Organon," at the peak of the great Greek. Between phenomena and facts, as the thinker believed, one must look not so much for logical as causal connections. They are based on differences, similarities, remnants and related changes. Thanks to Bacon, induction has become the main method of European science, and interest in deduction has weakened. But then, after Descartes, philosophy once again returned to the syllogism as the basis for achieving the right knowledge.

The return of induction. John Stuart Mill

This English scholar again began to criticize the deductive method in epistemology. He stated that the syllogism is in fact a transition from one particular phenomenon to another, and not at all from the general to the concrete. As the basis for scientific truth, he considers inductive inference. Mill expands and supplements Bacon's reflections. From his point of view, in philosophy, induction is the four methods, interconnected.

• The first is consent. That is, when there is a similarity in two or more cases of a certain phenomenon, then we are dealing with the cause of what we are studying.
• The second is the difference. For example, something occurs in one phenomenon, but is absent in another, but in all other details these phenomena coincide. So this difference is the reason.
• The third is the remnants. Suppose we explain some circumstances in a certain phenomenon for certain reasons. Hence, everything else in this phenomenon can be deduced from the remaining facts.
• And, finally, the method of correspondence. If we notice that after one phenomenon occurs after another changes, then there is a causal relationship between them.

The philosophy of science: induction as one of its pillars

English encyclopedist of the nineteenth century, Widyam Wewell, who wrote dozens of works in the field of different disciplines, was one of the most famous opponents of John Stuart Mill. Nevertheless, he also believed that induction has an enduring value for knowledge. This follows from the names of his main works. His book The Philosophy of Inductive Sciences produced a real sensation in the understanding of strict knowledge. It is to this man that we owe the modern vocabulary in the field of research. For example, he made the word "science" very popular, with his light hand, what scientists are doing finally ceased to be called "natural philosophy." His theory of induction is very interesting and has not lost its significance to this day. Not without reason, Wavell is called one of the founders of the philosophy of science.

Another look at the theory of induction

All the epistemology of the philosopher was divided into objective and subjective. From his point of view, all knowledge comes from ideas or from sensations. But theories derived from experience (inductive) are an indicator of progress in science. It is they who, as a matter of fact, collect by pieces the data of experience accumulated by experimenters, and use discoveries to explain the reasons and formulate laws. Wewell believed that he was continuing the business of Francis Bacon, and therefore argued with Mill, believing that the latter treats induction too narrowly, reduces it to enumeration and monotony. The process by which general truths "form" from the study of concrete facts leads to the development of science and its advancement. William Wavell's induction theory is an idea about the mental operation of "generalization," which, like a bridge, connects a certain combination of facts. Thus, she "guides" the researcher to ideas, through which it is possible to express a number of dissimilar elements through a fundamental law.

How inductive reception is understood in our time

Now in science and philosophy both methods of cognition are recognized. Induction and deduction are widely used. But the logic and truth of the premises are still the basis of modern scientific knowledge. Examples of complete induction - when there is a complete enumeration of all the elements, on the basis of which the whole of their group is determined - are not very often encountered. Mostly, the reasoning based on this technique is probabilistic. They are the conclusions of incomplete induction. Of course, experience is a very effective tool for establishing the truth. But the inductive method works only in the presence of a uniform order of things, as pointed out by Mill. If ninety percent of the people are right-handed, then the fact of belonging to the human race does not exclude the fact that this person can be left-handed. Therefore, logic always defines the limits of inductive techniques. They are often only probabilistic and require additional grounds and evidence. The same applies to analogy. It points ("leads") to the common features in the phenomena. However, this similarity can be superficial and does not always indicate causality. The method of incomplete induction becomes the basis of errors. Superstitions and stereotypes can also be its products.

The need for induction to test scientific hypotheses

A well-known critic of the "holistic approach" to research Karl Popper examines the grounds for theoretical cognition as follows. He tries to answer the three questions posed to him. Is it possible to justify a universal statement by the fact that it is based on experience? The philosopher believes that no, and therefore induction, from his point of view, in this case is not applicable. However, in the next two problems, it plays a significant role. Is it possible, Popper asks, to consider that some theory is false if the experimental data refute it? Yes, of course, he answers. And if there are several theories, and some of them are refuted by experience, and some are not? Then we will prefer those who managed to "survive". Thus, according to Popper, induction as a method of confirmation in philosophy plays a huge role. It helps us to determine the falsity of the statement, but not its truth. With its help, we can identify those hypotheses that are the most persistent in testing.