While scientific theories rely on inductive arguments based on observation, the subjectivity and imperfection of observation has a significant impact on the reliability of scientific inquiry. Repeated experiments and various methods are used to improve reliability, and science seeks more accurate and comprehensive understanding through a process of self-correction.
Unlike deduction, which works from universal truths to individual cases, induction is an argument where the premises inexplicably support the conclusion through ‘observation’. Inductivists believe that scientific theories are “proven facts,” and as such, they are derived through rigorous methods from empirical facts obtained through observation and experimentation. They place a great deal of value on observation in the process of scientific inquiry. The essence of scientific research is to try to understand and explain the laws of nature through repeated experiments and observations. Inductivists believe that the facts obtained through various observations will eventually become the decisive premises that establish the truth or falsity of an argument. For example, if an object A is observed to have a certain property without exception under any conditions, then it can be concluded that all objects A have that property.
In order for this argument to be convincing, inductivists must first establish the objectivity of observation. Objectivity of observation can only be established if it can be proven that a phenomenon is perceived as the same phenomenon by all observers. However, we cannot easily assert the objectivity of observation. The first thing to consider is the purity of the senses. Observations are always made through our five senses. Technology has created a variety of tools to help us observe, but they can only go so far; observation inevitably involves our five senses, and we are the ones who make the final decisions. Observers use all of their senses, including sight, which plays the largest role in the observation process, as well as hearing, smell, touch, and taste. But can we really call these senses pure?
Take vision, for example. A simple visual phenomenon would be light reflecting off an object, entering the eye, and being imprinted on the retina, but this is not the case with visual observation. When two observers observe something, they don’t necessarily have the same visual “experience,” even though we can assume that the image on their retinas-the visual phenomenon-is exactly the same. “To see is an act of more than eye movement,” says American philosopher of science Norwood Russell Hanson. In other words, an individual’s subjective visual experience is not determined by a simple “image” on the retina; his experience, his a priori knowledge, and even his expectations influence his experience. The result of an observation is shaped by a combination of external states, the perception of external phenomena, and the observer’s internal states.
Inductivists believe that the laws and theories that make up science are not based on the subjective, private experience of the observer, but on the objective, “public” record of observations. They believe that this gives the repeated observations of individuals a public character, and thus convinces them that they can be transformed into universal theories.
However, given the specificity of sensation, which is the combination of direct perception of an external phenomenon and the internal state of the observer, the inductivists’ argument is highly questionable, since it is impossible to say that the observations of two different observers of the same object are exactly the same. Moreover, we cannot say that yesterday’s observation and today’s observation by the same observer are the same. Their claim that the result of subjective observation is a universal theory is an overstatement. In this sense, the inductive method is both the root of the clarity of scientific theories and their limitation.
Bertrand Russell, who wrote in the 19th and 20th centuries, called the failure to solve the problem of induction a disgrace to philosophy, saying “A turkey was brought up on a turkey farm, and on his first morning he learned that he was fed at nine o’clock in the morning. He confirmed this many times over. Each day he added one more observation to the list. Finally, he decided he had enough data to conclude, “I always feed at 9:00 a.m.”. Sadly, however, this conclusion proved to be undeniably false because instead of feeding on Christmas Eve, he was decapitated.”
Russell implies that there is a major contradiction in inductivism itself. Inductivism, the accumulation of individual cases to derive general laws, cannot be justified because the conclusion is more than the premises.
Nevertheless, in everyday life, people expect certain rules. These rules are based on past experience, and they are rarely wrong. Yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, the sun always rose in the east, so tomorrow it will never rise in the west; Pythagoras, Lee, and Chopin all died, so I will die someday, too. With these rebuttals, the inductivists strengthen their beliefs. Let’s ask a more fundamental question. Is there any logical justification or basis for drawing further inferences from such a large number of observations? Do our many experiences justify tomorrow’s rules?
All inductive theories are based on repeated experiences, which, as we said, can never be exactly the same, only similar. But if repetition is based on similarity, then it is repetition only from a certain point of view.
Furthermore, it follows that the moment we define “this is repetition,” we must first have a point of view, such as a particular categorization system or expectation. In fact, words like “similar” or “similarity” or “resemblance” imply a great deal of subjectivity. Someone might say that their face resembles Wen Bin’s, and someone else might say that their soccer skills are similar to those of Ronaldo or Messi.
What if the sun rises in the west tomorrow? What if everything we’ve ever seen is negated? What if an immortal god appears? What if that apple that everyone says is red is actually blue? Can we say that the probability is zero? The objectivity of observation is not guaranteed because we don’t all share the same experience, and even similar repetitions require someone’s perspective, making induction imperfect.
To overcome these limitations, scientists use several methods to increase reliability. For example, they repeat experiments in different environments and conditions, have multiple researchers independently reproduce experiments, and use different measurement tools and methods. These efforts contribute to increasing the reliability of their results, but ultimately, we must accept that no observation can be completely objective and universal.
How can scientific knowledge be trusted? Science is constantly undergoing a process of self-correction, evolving as new evidence and observations modify or replace existing theories. This self-correcting nature of science allows it to move toward a more accurate and comprehensive understanding in the long run, even if individual observations are not perfect.
In conclusion, inductive reasoning plays an important role in scientific inquiry, but it requires constant effort to recognize and work on its limitations and imperfections. While science strives for perfect objectivity, it also recognizes and strives to overcome the subjectivity of human experience and observation.
