The Method of Induction and Logical Criticism

Currently, a method has become the fundamental for all researches. Whether they are practical or theoretical. It relies on a method or another. The induction method as an experimental method is collecting some quotative facts and then extracting a general result from them. The induction method which begins with several steps that observation, experimentation, hypothesis, and experiment to the theory. Some philosophers criticized this method, including David Hume. Karl popper. Hume’s criticism for the induction method was that if a part of the decision was correct it does not mean that all the decisions are correct. For instance, no one can deny that fire is burning, and this has been proven in the past and present experiments. But there is no evidence to prove that fire can burn in the future. According to Hume Humans learn from experience when they pay attention to the frequent events in an infinite way. As we expect that is to come will be like what we have seen in the past and now. The cause for creating this is that we are used to do this. It is not related to any rules and logical scientific principle. As long as the rule of nature is an ongoing process. So we can’t get the aim by the induction method so we can’t predict the future through it. Although Popper claims that the principles of induction method are incorrect, providing the assumption that make them believe that the future and past should be alike. Popper believes that we don’t need to talk about repetition but it needs to talk about the correct situation or mistakes. In order to show the wrong theories and eliminate them. For this reason, Popper set a method of (The possibility of refuting) he said that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow but we can say that the sun rises every day, provided that if the sun doesn’t rise one day, the theory will be rejected. Despite the criticisms and different ideas on induction method, it is still used in the research field.