The Philosophy of Science and The Problem of Confirming Scientific Essay

The Philosophy of Science and The Problem of Confirming Scientific Hypotheses - Essay Example What philosophy of science does is to examine these concepts and to ask questions about them. In this essay, I shall focus on the problem of understanding how observation and theory confirm scientific hypotheses. â€Å"What connection between an observation and a theory makes that observation evidence for the theory† (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p.39)? Herein, I shall argue that although science fails to provide certainty and reliability in confirming scientific hypotheses, a theory of confirmation is not impossible; what is impossible is to model a scientific theory of confirmation to that of a formal theory of confirmation. In this light, despite the problems induction poses, confirming scientific hypotheses is necessarily inductive. Given this, I shall divide my paper into four main parts. The first part will discuss with the problem of confirmation in relation to induction. Herein, I shall discuss David Hume’s (1978) problem of induction, a theory closely related to the pr oblem of confirming scientific hypotheses. The second part will discuss the theory of confirmation in relation to scientific explanations. Herein, Carl Hempel’s (1965) model for scientific explanation will be emphasized. In the third section, I shall focus on Nelson Goodman’s (1983) â€Å"new riddle of induction.†... Confirmation and Induction â€Å"The confirmation of theories is closely connected to another classic issue in philosophy: the problem of induction† (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p. 39). Scientists reason inductively in order to confirm their hypotheses. But does it mean to reason inductively? An Inductive argument on the other hand is one wherein even if the premises are true, the conclusion can only be probably true. For example: The swan I saw last Monday was white. The swan I saw last Tuesday was white. The swan I saw last Wednesday was white. Therefore, all swans are white. Given the said example, it can be said that the conclusion, â€Å"all swans are white† is not a conclusion that is absolutely true, because its contrary is possible. Case in point, in Australia, there are swans, which are black. This in effect, questions the validity of the conclusion. Now according to scientists, it is better to reason deductively rather than inductively, because in deductive reasoning , we can be certain if we start with true premises, the analysis will be true as well. Inductive reasoning can take us to false contradictions. Now the problem of induction is magnified in Hume’s (1978) â€Å"problem of induction.† Here, Hume uses the process of induction to question inductive reasoning itself. To his view, how sure are we that induction works? Just because induction worked in the past, it does not follow that induction will work in the future or in reference to future events. Hume’s view is founded on his explanation of the uniformity of nature. This assumes the rational order of the universe. This type of order is characterized in a spectrum of regularities wherein the events and relations among things that we have not examined yet, will be the same