Page:Sm all cc.pdf/77

 Here the focus is on deduction; induction was considered in Chapter 3. Before leaving the deduction/induction dichotomy, however, two common fallacies must be dispelled: ‘scientific deduction is superior to induction,’ and ‘scientific induction is superior to deduction.’ Three centuries ago, great minds battled over whether science should be deductive or inductive. René Descartes argued that science should be confined to the deductively certain, whereas Francis Bacon argued that the majority of scientific discoveries were empirical, inductive generalizations. A hallmark of the inception of rapid scientific progress was the realization that both deduction and induction are necessary aspects of science (Chapter 1). Yet the battle continues, fueled by misconceptions. For example, theoretical physicists such as Einstein probably would be outraged by the following statements from Beveridge’s [1955] book on scientific methods: “Since deduction consists of applying general principles to further instances, it cannot lead us to new generalisations and so cannot give rise to major advances in science. On the other hand the inductive process is at the same time less trustworthy but more productive.”

Inevitably, theoreticians value deduction and empiricists value induction, but the choice is based on taste rather than inherent superiority.

Scientific deduction uses the science of deduction, but the two do not share the same values or goals. Evaluating the validity of arguments is a primary objective of both, but scientific deduction places more emphasis on the premises. How can they be tested? Can the number of premises, or assumptions, be reduced, and if so what is the impact on the conclusion? How sensitive is the argument to the definition of terms in the premises? Are the premises themselves conclusions based on either deductive or inductive interpretation of other evidence?

Some scientists use a somewhat bootstrap logic that would be abhorrent to logicians. The technique is to tentatively assume an untested premise, and then see where it leads in conjunction with other, more established premises. If the resulting conclusion is one that is independently valued, perhaps on the basis of other deductive paths or perhaps on grounds of elegance or simplicity, then the premise may be tentatively accepted. These other standards of hypothesis evaluation are discussed more fully in Chapter 7.

Deductive Logic
Everyday language provides myriad opportunities for obscuring premises and conclusions, so the first step in evidence evaluation is usually the identification of premises and conclusion. Opinions, examples, descriptions, and many explanations are neither premise nor conclusion and are consequently not integral parts of an argument. Frequently, obvious premises are omitted from an argument:

“Publish or perish” is an argument of the form: all A are B, not B, ∴ not A. Here we use the symbol ‘∴ ’ to indicate ‘therefore’. The premises are ‘all successful scientists are paper publishers’ and ‘consider someone who is not a paper publisher’; the conclusion is ‘that person is not a successful scientist’.