I strongly agree with Poppers’ views of scientific method; firstly, deduction can provide certainty to scientific theory and allow us to accept hypothesis, law and theory as provisionally approved until it is falsified by the evidence; secondly, I believe imagination is the factor that infuses the development of science knowledge because curiosity is generally enhanced by imagination and personal perception. However, I think we should not ignore induction. In my view, induction together with deduction can be used to generate scientific knowledge.
From my opinion, Science is a set of knowledge that explains factors contributing to our functional universe; scientific theories build upon past knowledge and accumulate over period of time. Scientific method is the way in which science knowledge is achieved and justified. To justify scientific claims, solid evidence, namely experimental results and
…show more content…
As inductive reasoning is exclusively concluded from constructive evidence, potentially destructive evidence is somehow concealed, resulting in misinterpretation of information leading to ambiguous scientific theory. In response to Chalmers’ views of science, I believe induction and past knowledge allows us to establish testable and reasonable hypotheses but is insufficient to justify the result and ‘strictly having no imagination’ prevents us from pursuing undiscovered knowledge. As a result, induction is not as effective as hypothetico-deduction that allows us to openly question the universe and test our prediction by falsification to ensure that our proposed theory is the best explanation of the universe. I would frankly describe scientific method as follows: firstly, hypothesis is raised from past