Question

What do you think of eac of these ideas? Do you agree or disagree for each one give the answer in full sentences

1. I do find his approach of deductive reasoning as a replacement of inductive reasoning a valid way to define scientific practice because the process is the process no matter if one is proving something right or wrong. I feel it can be applied to all branches and should be because as states in the reading it is much more difficult for something to stand up to someone trying to prove it wrong rather than trying to prove it right, therefore making that idea or argument that much stronger. I am still out on if I think psychoanalysis is scientific, if I were to asked this question before the reading I would have said yes. But, it was mentioned that this particular discipline makes such broad predictions that it is hard to even have the process applied in a reasonable manner. Finally, Popper's falsification theory probably does limit what we can consider science, but that is not necessarily a bad thing as we should hold expectations at a higher standard when it comes to stamping something "scientifically certified".

2. Personally I do find Poppers approach to validating scientific practices as reasonable. When Popper claims "Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory--an event which would have refuted the theory, " it makes me think about the medical field and all of the research and testing or falsification going on when looking for new medicinal alternatives. Poppers approach at validating scientific practices is trying to eliminate all possibilities of phony or fraudulent science. I do think it can be applied in all branches of science, however it must be carefully considered throughout all branches. It looks to point out the truth and only the truth, which in my opinion is something science is really all about no matter what branch. I did not change my mind about inductive reasoning, and i still see it as a more broad approach to observing science, which may not gather all the facts and only the facts. I do think psychoanalysis is science, any topic that seeks methods and approaches to better understand something is science in my opinion. The fact that psychologist can observe the outcomes of their different therapies used to treat mental disorders and use that information to make future decisions, allows for it to be a scientific field. Much of the psychology fields, if not all of them would be considered a type of science to me. I do think Poppers falsification theory limits what we can consider science, however i think his theory does it in a positive manner. Poppers theory seeks to eliminate all false information within a scientific observation.

Answer 1

1. I disagree with the view that deductive reasoning should replace inductive reasoning in scientific methodology. Firstly, these are two different types of reasoning that should be used complementarily to arrive at logical conclusions. Abandoning one altogether would give us only a partial understanding of phenomenon. Secondly, we do not yet possess enough measurement tools to observe every aspect of our reality and make deductions out of them. For this purpose, we cannot half the progress of science and should rely on careful inductive reasoning as well.

Please post the other question separately.