The late 19th century American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce proposed that the process of abduction-deduction-induction with regards to a particularly issue is parallel to the basic process of the scientific method: hypothesis creation, hypothesis testing, and hypothesis generalization or theory-building. Do you agree with this proposition?
Strictly speaking, science, including hypothesis testing, is based on induction. That is why it is based on falsification (rejection of the null hypothesis, since you can not "prove" things by induction), and replication is paramount.
Most research does indeed involve a cycle of formulating hypotheses (abduction), testing them (deduction) and reaching conclusions based on the outcomes (induction).
One of the ways to disagree with this thesis is to consider that there is no such thing as "the scientific method", either in the sense of the philosophy of science (referred to here), nor in the procedural method for obtaining data. There is no single way to understand philosophically the formulation, contrastation and acceptance of hypotheses, nor is there consensus among the scientists themselves on this matter. The idea of hypothesis creation, testing, and generalization is closer to a stereotype than to describing such a "method".
- Badges
- Science topic