Summarised from Paul Davies' 'The Mind of God: Science and the search

for ultimate meaning' (Penguin; London: 1992)

******************************

The popular view of science is: .................

Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in science. Science is objective. Science knowledge is reliable knowledge and a secure basis upon which other scientific knowledge can be built.

This is very wrong and dangerously misleading!

Induction can be based on logic or experience. Deductive arguments are characterised by the fact that if the premise of an argument is true, then the conclusion must be true. Induction does not possess that character and inductive arguments are not necessarily logically valid arguments. It is possible for the premise of an inductive argument to be true and the conclusion false and no contradiction to be involved.

The argument purporting to justify induction is circular:

The principle of induction worked successfully on occasion X1.

The principle of induction worked successfully on occasion X2, etc.

Therefore the principle of induction always works.

No! The argument is an inductive one which cannot be used to justify induction.

One of the other flaws of induction / positivism / science is the vagueness and dubiousness of the demand that a 'large number' of observations be made under a 'wide variety' of circumstances. How are

these to be described? Can they not vary from one item to the next? How many times does one have to put one's hand in the fire to observe that fire burns one's skin and hurts? The list of variety could go on infinitely with 'superfluous' variations like the decor of the science

lab!

The inductionist method of science is usually weakened to various 'probablistic' versions. But how precise can a 'probablistic' version

of science be?