The Logic of Scientific Discovery

The Problem of Induction

Popper opens by asserting that the logic of scientific discovery requires a universal understanding of procedure. Empirical science utilizes the senses to guide experimentation. Popper argues against the inductive methods used in empirical sciences that develop definitive conclusions, called universal statements, based upon evidence. Logic dictates that universal statements can never be fully justified because there is always the possibility that they may be disproven. Popper utilizes the example of swans to illustrate this idea. One may observe several swans, all of which are white, and conclude that all swans are white. However, the existence of one black swan challenges this universal statement. Popper calls this “the problem of induction” (28). He asserts that no one can state a definitive conclusion because new evidence always has the possibility of falsifying a claim.

Inductive scientists rely upon a principle of induction to establish certain truth. They argue that eliminating inductive logic from the scientific method would mean stripping scientists of their ability to present clear theories and, therefore, put them at equal status with false, imagined ideas. Popper proposes, however, that an adherence to inductive logic is what solidifies scientific thought into a realm of the imaginary.