Deductive and inductive methods of cognition are the most common both in logic and in philosophy. They can be considered in different ways. On the one hand, these are techniques that facilitate the ability to logically derive new information from the information that already exists. On the other hand, they are described as special methods of cognition. Consider their difference and features of such a mechanism for the appearance of generalized information as induction.
Philosophy: the basic concepts of various techniques in cognition
The word "deduction" in translation from Latin means "removal". That is, when from any general, abstract knowledge, a transition to its particular or concrete form takes place. Induction translates as "guidance." That is, it is associated with the generalization of some particular knowledge, the results of experience or research. In philosophy, induction is usually a method of obtaining general judgments from experimental data. It is believed that deduction provides more reliable knowledge if its premises are true. It is more convincing, and European science, especially mathematics, is based on this method of cognition. 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 variation 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, deduction is usually used. However, they call it the inductive method. The thing is the name of a particular axiom on which this technique is based.
An excursion into the history of antiquity
In philosophy, induction is a method of cognition that was born with the teachings of Socrates. But his understanding of this technique was different from that which is known to us now. He called the method of comparison and exclusion, when in the study of particular cases too narrow definitions were discarded and their general significance was found. With the emergence of the teachings of Aristotle, the whole of ancient Greek philosophy changed. 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 opposite of syllogism. The main principle of obtaining knowledge, he considered deduction.
Renaissance
What is happening at this time in philosophy? Induction is the foundation of true science, Renaissance figures said. They were very critical of Aristotle, since scholasticism was based on his theories, which they considered obsolete and inhibiting the development of science. Francis Bacon was especially radical in this regard . He believed that deduction is a support for words and signs, and if the latter are incorrectly formulated, then all knowledge based on them does not make sense. He proposed making generalizations from scientific discoveries, rather than explaining them based on existing theories.
Induction in the New Organon
Interestingly, with all the enmity with Aristotle, Bacon practically followed his principles. He also opposed induction to syllogism, and called his main work the “New Organon", in defiance of the great Greek. Between phenomena and facts, as the thinker believed, it is necessary to search not so much for logical as for causal connections. They are based on differences, similarities, residuals and related changes. Thanks to Bacon, induction has become the main method of European science, and interest in deduction has waned. But then, after Descartes, philosophy again returned to syllogism as the basis for achieving true knowledge.
The return of induction. John Stuart Mill
This English scientist again began to criticize the deductive method in epistemology. He stated that syllogism is actually a transition from one particular phenomenon to another, and not at all from general to concrete. As a basis for scientific truth, he considers it is an inductive conclusion. Mill expands and complements Bacon's thoughts. From his point of view, in philosophy, induction is four methods that are interconnected.
- The first of these is consent. That is, when there is a similarity in two or more cases of a certain phenomenon, then we are dealing with the reason that we are studying.
- The second is the difference. For example, something occurs in one phenomenon and is absent in another, but in all other details these phenomena coincide. So this difference is the reason.
- The third is leftovers. Suppose we explain some circumstances in a certain phenomenon with certain reasons. So, everything else in this phenomenon can be deduced from the remaining facts.
- And finally, the matching method. If we notice that after something happens after one phenomenon after another changes, then there is a causal connection between them.
Philosophy of science: induction as one of its pillars
The nineteenth-century English encyclopedist Widyam Wavell, who wrote dozens of works in various disciplines, was one of John Stuart Mill's most famous opponents. Nevertheless, he also believed that induction has enduring value for cognition. This follows from the titles of his main works. His book "Philosophy of Inductive Sciences" made a splash in understanding strict knowledge. It is to this person that we owe a modern dictionary 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. No wonder Wavell is called one of the founders of the philosophy of science.
Another look at induction theory
The philosopher divided the whole gnoseology into objective and subjective. From his point of view, all knowledge comes from ideas or from sensations. But theories arising from experience (inductive) are an indicator of progress in science. It is they who seem to collect bit by bit the experimental data accumulated by the experimenters, and use the discoveries to explain the reasons and formulate laws. Wavell believed that he was continuing the work of Francis Bacon, and therefore argued with Mill, believing that the latter interprets induction too narrowly, reduces it to enumeration and uniformity. The process by which general truths are “composed” of studies of concrete facts leads to the development of science and its advancement. The theory of induction by William Wavell represents the idea of the mental operation of “generalization”, which, as it were, by a bridge connects a certain combination of facts. Thus, she “leads” the researcher to ideas with the help of which a number of heterogeneous elements can be expressed through the fundamental law.
How inductive technique is understood in our time
Now in science and philosophy both of these 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 listing of all the elements, on the basis of which their entire group is determined - are not very common. Mostly reasoning based on this trick is probabilistic. They represent the findings of incomplete induction. Of course, experience is a very effective tool for establishing truth. But the inductive method only works if there is a monotonous order of things, which was also pointed out by Mill. If ninety percent of people are right-handed, then the fact of belonging to the human race does not exclude the possibility that a given person may be left-handed. Therefore, logic always determines the boundaries of inductive techniques. They are often only probabilistic and require additional reasons and evidence. The same goes for analogy. It indicates (“induces”) common features in phenomena. However, this similarity may be superficial and may not always indicate causality. The method of incomplete induction becomes the basis of errors. Superstitions and stereotypes can also be his offspring.
The need for induction to test scientific hypotheses
The famous critic of the “holistic approach” to research, Karl Popper, considers the foundations of theoretical knowledge as follows. He is trying to answer three questions he posed. Can a universal statement be justified by the fact that it is based on experience? The philosopher believes that no, and therefore induction, from his point of view, is not applicable in this case. However, in the following two problems, it plays a significant role. Is it possible, Popper wonders, to believe that a certain theory is false if 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 determine the falsity of a statement, but not its truth. With its help, we can highlight those hypotheses that are the most persistent in testing.