<p>Singular statement—a statement that refers to a particular occurrence or state of affairs at a particular time and place</p><p>Universal statement—a general statement about all objects or events of a certain kind</p><p>Observation statement—a singular statement that reports some observer’s sense experience of some state of the world</p><p>Scientific laws and theories—universal statements about the properties or behavior of some aspect of the universe</p><p>Conditions for legitimate generalization from observation statements to scientific laws or theories: 1. The number of observation statements is “large.” 2. The observations occur under a wide variety of conditions. 3. No observation statement conflicts with the law or theory.</p><p>Principle of Induction: If the 3 conditions for legitimate generalization are satisfied for a certain kind of object A and a certain property B, then all A’s have the property B.</p><p>Problem with condition 1—vagueness of “large”</p><p>Problems with condition 2— 1. How does one tell whether a variation of conditions is significant? Which variations are superfluous? 2. Where do we acquire the knowledge on the basis of which we determine which variations are significant and which are not?</p><p>Problem with condition 3—Very little scientific knowledge has no known exceptions.</p><p>Inductivism—the view that scientific knowledge can be derived from observable facts by inductive inference Problems with inductivism: 1. How can inductive reasoning ever produce knowledge of the unobservable? 2. How can scientific laws formulated in precise mathematical terms be inferred from inexact measurements? 3. How can inductive reasoning be justified? (the problem of induction)</p><p>Possible solutions to the problem of induction: 1. Justify induction on the basis of logic problem–Inductive reasoning cannot be reduced to deductive reasoning. 2. Justify induction on the basis of experience problem–Justifying induction on the basis of experience amounts to justifying it inductively, which is obviously question-begging. 3. Weaken the principle of induction so that the conclusion of scientific arguments is that some law or theory is probably true. problems: A. There must be some point at which principles of rationality cannot themselves be rationally justified. B. Even deductive logic cannot be argued for without begging the question.</p><p>Model of prediction and explanation in the “inductivist account of science”:</p><p> scientific laws/theories + initial conditions → predictions/explanations</p><p>Initial conditions: description of the relevant aspects of the situation to which a scientific law or theory is being applied to yield a prediction or explanation</p>