Question Description
The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people believe that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience-of an observation or the result of an experiment-can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can somehow be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal statement is based on inductive inference. Thus, to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive inferences are logically justified.Yet if we want to find a way of justifying inductive inferences, we must first of all try to establish a principle of induction. A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method. This principle, says Reichenbach, determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power todecide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet’s mind.Q.If you were to interview the author, what would be your follow-up question to him/her?a)What factors are of tantamount importance to scientific discipline as the principle of induction?b)Is the validity of individual instances enough to prove the validity of a principle that seems to explain all of them?c)Can fanciful and arbitrary creations contribute to the field of science?d)Would the principle o f induction have to be revised with the emergence of seemingly contradictory observations?Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.