What Is Unscientific Induction? How It Is Different From Scientific Induction

Scientific induction is defined as the process of inferring the material truth of a general real proposition from the actual observation of particular instances of facts and phenomena in reliance on the law of uniformity of nature and law of causation.

Scientific induction is a kind of inference. It is a logical method of justifiably – inferring a general proposition from a number of particular propositions. Let us take some examples-

I. Frog a is cold-blooded

Frog b is cold-blooded

———————————-

Frog c is cold-blooded

All frogs are cold-blooded.

2. Diamond a is not a conductor of electricity

Diamond b is not a conductor of electricity

Diamond c is not a conductor of electricity

.’. No diamond conducts electricity.

The form of reasoning applied here is:

—————————————————-

S,,S,, S,. . . are P is known to be causally related with each of S₁ S₂, S₃. . .

All S’s are P CHARACTERISTICS: From the definition of scientific induction its characteristics are obvious; (i) scientific induction seeks to establish a general real proposition.

The aim of scientific induction is to establish a proposition in its conclusion. A proposition is that which expresses a fact and is either true or false. Thus the conclusion of scientific induction establishes a general fact, but not a concept or idea, It does not intend to give a general notion rather gives a general proposition.

A general proposition is about the whole class of unlimited particular cases. In other words the predicate of a general proposition states something about the entire class of the subject term. A proposition, such as, ‘all metals, when heated, expand’, or ‘all vipors are poisonous’ is about unlimited and indefinite number of individuals of the class metal or the class vipor as the case may be.

Scientific induction does not aim at establishing particular propositions like ‘some birds are black’ or ‘many people are bald’. Unrestricted generality is the hallmark of scientific induction.

But many propositions which appear to be general are not really general. For example, the proposition, ‘all the districts of Orissa have colleges’, is apparently general because of its form but really it is not general as it establishes the truth of a proposition whose scope’ is of a limited whole.

These propositions are the conclusion of, what is called, perfect induction. Scientific induction must be distinguished from perfect induction.

Scientific induction establishes a general proposition which is real but not verbal. A real proposition is distinguished from a verbal proposition. A real proposition is informative and synthetic in the sense that its predicate says something new about the subject. But in a verbal proposition the predicate states the meaning or synonym of the subject term.

It gives no new information. The predicate states the connotation or part of the connotation of the subject term. For example, all brothers are male’ or ‘all mothers are women’, are verbal propositions.

A connotative definition states a verbal proposition in order to give the meaning of a term. In other words the predicate states the meaning of all subject term in a verbal proposition. In a general real proposition like ‘All dogs are mammals’ the predicate gives some new information.

ii) The data on which scientific induction is founded are facts of experience. To establish a general real proposition one must begin by observing particular instances. By observing the particular cases of death of persons we infer the general real proposition. ‘All men are mortal’.

Observation can be performed by means of experiment and also by the help of instruments such as telescope, microscope and other sophisticated apparatus.

iii) There must be an inductive leap in scientific induction. As we start from the ‘known’ facts of observation to reach a conclusion about the ‘unknown’ we make jump or a take a leap.

The inductive leap is a passage from the observed to the unobserved, from some to all (particular to general) and from the known to unknown. We observe some instances of frogs to be cold blooded and conclude that all frogs are cold blooded.

The conclusion not only asserts about the observed cases of frogs but also about all the frogs of past, present and future which are not observed nor are they accessible for observation.

Inductive leap, according to Mill and Bain, is the most important characteristic of any induction proper. No induction is possible without inductive leap. Perfect induction is no induction because it has no inductive leap.

iv) The conclusion of induction is more general than the premises. Thus the conclusion of an induction goes beyond the premises to say something by taking a leap.

This is the reason why the conclusion of induction is always probable. In a deduction the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises so it gives formal certainty. But the conclusion of induction has only probability but no certainty.

v) Law of causation and the law of uniformity of nature are considered to be the formal grounds of induction. Scientific induction relies on the two laws as its basis. Inductive leap is justified because of the law of causation and the law of uniformity of nature.

The law of causation is the characteristic which distinguishes scientific induction from induction per simple enumeration.

Law of universal causation states that everything or event has a cause. Law of uniformity of nature states that nature behaves uniformly. According to this law the same cause always produces the same effect under similar conditions.

Thus the law of uniformity of nature, according to Mill, is the basis of induction which justifies the leap from the observed to the unobserved. The law of uniformity of nature is the ground of all inductions whereas law of causation as a ground of induction is an additional specialty in case of scientific induction.

For example, ‘All cases of leprosy are cured by M.D.T’, is a conclusion of scientific induction which is based on the known causal connection between leprosy and M.D.T. The conclusion about all cases of leprosy is justified because of the causal connection.

However in many advance sciences, generalizations are not necessarily supported by a causal explanation. For example, on the basis of statistical probability and non-instantial hypotheses we can also make scientific generalizations. The traditional view that the causal explanation is the defining characteristic of scientific induction, is not fully acceptable.

value:

It is to be noted that the conclusion of scientific induction is never absolutely certain inspire of being supported by the laws.

The reliance on the laws only makes the conclusion more reliable or highly probable. There is no question of formal validity in case of any induction what- soever. The laws may constitute strong grounds to establish the conclusion but never prove it.

However, scientific induction is considered by Mill and Bain to be the best form of induction as its conclusion is more reliable than other forms of induction.

Mill’s view of scientific induction is mostly restricted to finding the causal connection. It comes under primary induction. As far as the present day scientific thinking is concerned application of inductive inference procedures to collected data (premises) does not give us scientific knowledge rather the method of inventing hypotheses. By testing them we arrive at scientific knowledge.

According to C.G. Hempel, ” scientific hypotheses and theories are not derived from observed facts, but invented in order to account for them”. Mill’s notion of ‘induction’, in a wider sense, can be used appropriately in case of secondary induction as well.

Induction by simple enumeration:

Induction by simple enumeration is called unscientific induction by some. It is defined as the process of inferring the material truth of a general real proposition from the actual observation of particular instances of facts and phenomena on the ground of uncontradicted experience in reliance on the law of uniformity of nature.

This inference states that in our experience something has been perceived to possess some characteristic. Never have we come across a single contrary instance. Because of the

Uncontradictoriness of our experience we generalize that all the members of that class possess that particular characteristic. For example, we have found that all the crows are black.

We never have come across any non-black crow nor did we know from any other source about a non-black crow. On the basis of such uniformity and uncontradicted experience we come to the general conclusion that “All crows are black”

Example :

Crow A is black Crow B is black

Crow C is black

No non-black crow is experienced so far.

.•. All crows are black.

The reasoning involved here is :

a,, a,, a,- are p

a,. a” a, are all observed instances of a. ] ‘2 -i

No observed instance of a is not P All a is P

This is the popular form of induction of a common man. CHARACTERISTICS :

i) Induction by simple enumeration establishes a general real proposition, like scientific induction. “All crows are black” is a general proposition for the subject is about an unlimited number. It is a real proposition as the predicate states a fact about the subject.

i) Like scientific induction we have the premises of unscientific induction from experience of particular instances. The probability of the conclusion of unscientific induction increases depending upon the number of instances observed under varying circumstances. Thus induction by simple enumeration, as its name suggests, makes its conclusion more probable if more number of positive instances are counted or enumerated for observation.

Induction by simple enumeration is distinguished from induction by complete enumeration. In case of simple enumeration the instances are incomplete as the general proposition is about an unlimited totality. In unscientific induction the observation of particular instances helps us to establish a general proposition on the basis of uncontradictory experience. If we experience one negative instance(contrary instance) like one non-black crow the conclusion is rejected as false.

iii) Like scientific induction there is an inductive leap in unscientific induction. We pass from the known to the unknown, from observed to the unobserved and from particular to general, i.e. some to all.

(iv) Unscientific induction relies on the law of uniformity of nature like scientific induction. But unlike scientific induction it does not rely on the law of causation. We see some uniformity when we mark that all crows are black. We do not know if there is any causal relation between the colours of the crow with its other essential properties.

Value:

We are unaware of any causal relation in case of unscientific induction. In this respect probability of the conclusion of this induction is less than that of the conclusion of scientific induction which is based on causal law.

Logicians, like Bacon, hold that induction by simple enumeration is merely collecting number of instances which is no better than a childish affair. It is the layman’s induction. Ordinary people cannot have critical and analytical mind. It may, sometimes.

be a complicated procedure to have proper observation of fact. So a common man depends on induction by simple enumeration to arrive at a conclusion. However the common man’s popular induction may be, some times, a hasty generalization without careful examination or scrutiny of the instances experienced.

Such generalizations have no probability. But in some other occasions a generalization has a greater degree of probability. But in general the degree of probability is low in case of induction by simple enumeration due to the risk of a negative(contrary) instance in future. The risk of such a contrary instance ruins the generalization completely.

It is to be pointed out that the value of induction by simple enumeration is not insignificant in science. It is considered as a beginning stage of scientific induction. As the generalization is based on uniformity or resemblances of instances it helps us to formulate the hypothesis and thus is the starting point of induction proper.

To sum up. It may be noted that the conclusions of scientific induction and induction by simple enumeration are not different in kind as considered traditionally.

The difference is only in degree as both the conclusions are only probable. Hence it is not proper to conclude that scientific induction gives certainty because of its basis of causal law and the conclusion of induction by simple enumeration gives only probability.

As all scientific inductions are not based on casual law and all inductions by simple enumeration are not hasty generalizations their conclusions are more or less probable depending on the circumstance. The conclusions are only different in degree but not in kind so far as their probability is concerned.