The Scientific Method

In my previous article, "science: an intelligent desire", we discussed the concept of science and its features. In this article, we at going to discuss the methods of reasoning by which we can arrive at a sound scientific conclusion. First, we must understand what these modes of reasoning are, what role they play and the controversy that circumspect them.

Are you with me? Am sure you are.

Methods of Approach

In the scientific community, it is an established fact that for a finite conclusion to be achieved, one must be able to draw a form of inference from his observations, analysis, that is, one must be able to interpret correctly and logically his or her scientific findings and therefore must employ a form of logic to give pillar to his inference. In science, there are only two methods of scientific reasoning approved by the scientific community for reaching a logical conclusion and they are; induction and deduction. What do this terms mean? Are they the same? Are they different? Is one more efficient than the other? Is one method more appropriate than the other for a particular subject study? I shall answer this question in this article. But first, we must understand what these terms, induction, and deduction, implies.

Induction

From the Merriam-webster dictionary, induction (in science) is defined as the process of reasoning whereby inference is drawn about a general instance just by observing a set of particular cases.
Self-explanatory isn't it? Induction simply means the bringing together sets of particular cases or instances, deriving a pattern and inferring a general statement. A simplistic example would be like this:

John is a young man of 14 years

David is a young man of 14 years

John limps, David limps,

Therefore all young men of 14 years limps.

Induction is quite similar to the reasoning example given above, but more logical. Another example, if we observe enough houseflies, we can infer that all houseflies move in a spiral and zigzag motion.
Francis bacon, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, views induction as "a process of elimination among a number of possible alternatives".

John Stuart mill in the Encyclopedia Britannica also defines induction as "the operation of thoughts where we infer what we know to be true in a particular case or a series of particular cases will be true for all cases that resemble the former in all assignable aspects".
Therefore, from what we have seen so far, induction can safely be defined as the process of inferring the general proposition from a set of particulars.

Deduction

Deduction is the opposite of induction, a direct opposite if you would like. While induction involve the inference of a general proposition from a set of particulars, deduction involves the inference of a particular case from a general or known fact. Merriam-webster dictionary defines deduction( science) as inference in which the conclusion of a particular case follows Necessarily from general or universal premises. Make sense right? In this method, one arrives at a conclusion about a particular case by referring to a known universal fact. A simple example of this method is as follows:

All women below the age of 27 have bandy legs

June is below 27 years, June is a woman

Therefore, June has bandy legs.

Anyone familiar with the methods of the English detective Sherlock Holmes, whom I am also fond of making reference to, would know that the outstanding detective was quite handy with deductive reasoning and would arrive at logical conclusions about a particular case from a set of already established facts or data leaving Dr. Watson flummoxed and nonplussed most of the time.

The Correct Logic

As we have seen from the above explanations, induction and deduction are different methods of reasoning. Nonetheless, there has been a subtle debate that has gone on for a long time about which of the methods is more efficient i.e error proof. Which one should be preferred when one wishes to arrive at a logical and dependable conclusion?
In an essay entitled The logic of discovery, Peter Medewar, British biologist argued against the legitimacy of inductive reasoning and rejected it vehemently as a logical form of reasoning in science.
Other scientists have disagreed with medewar, arguing that induction has also been used to achieve great results as in the case of Francis bacon's contribution to the birth of modern science in the 17th century.
So where do we stand? Is Medewar correct and is there truly no place Inductive reasoning in the hallmark of science or was he simply ignoring the facts or perhaps he was oblivious of them? Let us take a deep breath and ask ourselves the question, "was Medewar right and does inductive reasoning have no place in science at all?"... Have you thought about it yet? Have you reached a conclusion? Good. Lets move on.

The only way? Or a two way road?

My opinion on the matter? Medewar was wrong and those scientist who claim as Medewar did that induction has no place in science are rushing downstream or climbing uphill by advocating conservatism and leaving no room for other means of approach. It is absolutely unwarranted to ignore the contributions that inductive reasoning has brought to science as in the case of Francis bacon's discoveries and many more. Arguing that one method is more efficient than the other is like arguing that planes are the only means of arriving at a destination in the event of a travel. Induction makes classifications, deduction draws from classifications, and the both of these methods, if properly employed can be used to arrive at sound conclusion. Referring to our definitions of induction and deduction, both can be seen as two opposite but accurate ways of arriving at logical conclusions.

Think of these methods as a pathway with two doors at it's opposite end where door one signifies a particular event, door two signifies a general premise: while induction moves from particular to general (door one to door two), deduction moves from the general to the particular (door two to door one.)

The Ape Experiment

As an experiment to show that induction and deduction are two different, yet complimentary tools for arriving at a logical conclusion, in an essay titled can an ape tell a joke? Vickie Hearn, an American author and philosopher, describe a problem solving study in which a chimp and an orangutan was housed in separate facilities and were each given a small hexagonal block of wood with and different assortments of openings into which only one one of the blocks would fit. The chimp examined each block, tasted, smelled and after trying each and every single opening, found the one the block would fit into. The orangutan, however, sat for a few minutes, looked at the block and after what seemed like a long thought, put the block exactly in the hexagonal opening! Was the chimp a better scientist than the orangutan? Was one approach more better than the other? No! They were just simply different but yet arrived at a significant dependable conclusion that the box was meant for the hexagonal opening alone.

A Debate Resolved: PERSPECTIVE

So we see that there no method of reasoning gains ascendancy over the other, although one may be preferred over the other, but that depends on the scientist and not on a universal precept. Point of view must necessarily differ, yet our conclusion may not, if we approach the problem at hand logically, whether by induction or by deduction.
As the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say, "you have your way, i have my way. As for right way, the correct way and the only way, it does not exist."

Thank you all for reading and i hope all confusion has been cleared. However, if after reading this article and there is still some questions you would like to ask me or would like to make some contribution, please do not hesitate. And remember, stay scientific. Thank you.

*References
Image source@http://www.anujgargcoaching.com/eshop/image/cache/reasoning

Image source @http:// s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/

Imagesource@http://www.borneotourgigant.com/