Epistemic Objectivity Behind Inductive Probability: Beyond Carnap-Popper Controversy on the Problem of Inductive Logic
AbstractScience neither aims at having the monopoly over the truth about the world nor establishing a dogmatic knowledge. Natural light of experience is held by empiricists to be the reliable source of human knowledge. Inductive logic has been a leading tool of empirical experiments in justifying and confirming scientific theories with evidence. Science cannot reach where it has reached without inductive logic. Inductive logic has, therefore, played an important role in making science what it is today. Inductive logic helps science to justify its theories not form convictional opinions of scientists but from factual propositions. However, inductive logic has been problematic in the sense that its logic of justification led philosophers of science to demarcation, the distinction of episteme from doxa. At present, some philosophers of science and scientists attempt to justify why science carries out a reliable knowledge. Some have argued for structuralism and realism of scientific theories rather than believing in the course of miracles and others for their historicity. Both views are explanatories of how science works and progresses. This essay recalls the arguments for structures of scientific theories and their historicity. First, the essay analyses the controversy between Rudolf Carnap and Karl Popper on how the problem of inductive logic in confirming scientific theories can be solved. In so doing, the essay refers to empirical probabilities as well as the limits calculus. Second, the essay merges frequentist and Bayesian approaches to determine how scientific theories are to be confirmed or refuted. Third, the use of a new form of Bayesian Theorem will show how mathematical and logical structures respond to some of the important questions that arise from the historical and realistic views about scientific theories.The essay argues for epistemic objectivity behind inductive probability, the key issue of the controversy in question, and proves that the truth about the world is symmetric.
. L.Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translation by Peats D.F & McGuinness B.F with an Introduction by Russell Bertrand. London: Routledge,1974.
. B. Skyrms. Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic. London:Wadsworth, 2000.
. I. Lakatos. “Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic,” in Mathematics, Science and Epistemology: Philosophical Papers. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 128-193.
. R. Carnap. Logical Foundations of Probability. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,1992.
. N. G. Ronald. “Empirical Probability, Objective Statistical Methods, and Scientific Inquiry,”in Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and Statistical Theories of Science. Harper and Hooker, Ed.., II. Dordrecht-Holland: Reidel Publishing Company, 1976, pp. 63-101.
. N. Cartwright. How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
. K. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.
. S.Wenmackers. Philosophy of Probability: Foundations, Epistemology, and Computation. Brussels: University of Groningen, 2011.
. J. Bernoulli. The Art of Conjecturing. Translation by Edith Dudley Sylla. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
. J. Earman & W. C. Salmon. “The Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses,” in Introduction to The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1992, pp. 42-103.
. A. Einstein. Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. Stachel John, Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
. D. P. Rowbottom. Popper’s Critical Rationalism. A Philosophical Investigation. New York: Routledge, 2011.
. I. Hacking. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
. J. Hattiangadi. “Fractured Knowledge: Fake News” The Impact of Critical Rationalism. Raphael Sassower & Nathaniel Laor, Ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, pp. 115-128.
. T. Kuhn. “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolution”. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Martin Curd & J.A. Cover, Ed. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1998, pp. 86-100.
. T. Kuhn. “Objectivity, Value Judgement and Theory Choice”. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Martin Curd & J.A. Cover, Ed. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1998, pp. 102-118.
. W. C. Salmon. “Rationality and Objectivity in Science or Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes”. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Cover J. A. & Martin Curd, Ed. W. W. Norton & Company, 1998, pp.551- 583.
. J. Worrall. “Structural Realism: The best of Both Worlds?” The Philosophy of Science. David Papineau, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University, 1996, pp. 139-165.
. S. Psillos. “The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate”. The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science. 51, pp. 705–728, Dec. 2000.
. P. Feyerabend. Conquest of Abundance. A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being. Bert Terpstra, Ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
. Alan F. Chalmers. What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd edition. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1999.
. K. Popper. Conjectures and Refutations. Oxon: Routledge Classics, 2007.
. Aristotle. Posterior Analytics. Translation by Barnes, J. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
. M. Polanyi. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Taylor & Francis, 2005.
. A. J. Ayer. “Truth, Verification and Verisimilitude” in The Philosophy of Karl Popper: Book Two. Schilpp, P. A., Ed. LaSalle, IL: The Open Court Publishing Co, 1974.
Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- By submitting the processing fee, it is understood that the author has agreed to our terms and conditions which may change from time to time without any notice.
- It should be clear for authors that the Editor In Chief is responsible for the final decision about the submitted papers; have the right to accept\reject any paper. The Editor In Chief will choose any option from the following to review the submitted papers:A. send the paper to two reviewers, if the results were negative by one reviewer and positive by the other one; then the editor may send the paper for third reviewer or he take immediately the final decision by accepting\rejecting the paper. The Editor In Chief will ask the selected reviewers to present the results within 7 working days, if they were unable to complete the review within the agreed period then the editor have the right to resend the papers for new reviewers using the same procedure. If the Editor In Chief was not able to find suitable reviewers for certain papers then he have the right to accept\reject the paper.B. sends the paper to a selected editorial board member(s). C. the Editor In Chief himself evaluates the paper.
- Author will take the responsibility what so ever if any copyright infringement or any other violation of any law is done by publishing the research work by the author
- Before publishing, author must check whether this journal is accepted by his employer, or any authority he intends to submit his research work. we will not be responsible in this matter.
- If at any time, due to any legal reason, if the journal stops accepting manuscripts or could not publish already accepted manuscripts, we will have the right to cancel all or any one of the manuscripts without any compensation or returning back any kind of processing cost.
- The cost covered in the publication fees is only for online publication of a single manuscript.