Type a new keyword(s) and press Enter to search

Principle of Induction

            The principle of induction is linked to its founder, Francis Bacon, known to many as the “ Father of Modern Science”. According to this principle, science begins with observation. The observations should be faithfully recorded, and ideally with an unprejudiced mind cleared of all Idols — another concept put forth by Bacon, which I will not go into here. These observation statements form the basis from which the theories and laws that make up scientific knowledge are derived [1].
             There are three integral rules to observe in Bacon’s induction [2]. Firstly, the number of observation statements underlying the eventual generalization must be large. Secondly, the observations must be repeated under a wide variation of conditions. Lastly, no accepted observation statement should contradict the derived universal law. The inductive method was one of the earliest scientific methods to be formally proposed. It is certainly not without its critics, but it does have its merits, being to some extent a tried-and-tested method. In this essay, we shall see how it has guided critical and creative thinking in science, quote a detailed example of its usage, and also explore its limitations as a scientific method.
             Apparently, the principle of induction alone allows for both the accommodation of both the critical and creative aspects to science [3]. Creative thinking, which has to do with the discovery of theories, is demonstrated where induction is used to arrive at a law of nature. Critical thinking, which is concerned with the justification of theories, comes into play where, by the same method of induction, we analyze what we have derived to check if it is true. I think this would simply mean to gather infinitely more observation statements, where each new observation would, if it aligned with the theory proposed, seem to give the theory added justification. If it conflicted with the theory proposed, then the theory would probably come under severe criticism from the scientific community, and its value would consequently be diminished.