Difference Between Empiricism And Positivism And Inductivism

1432 Words6 Pages
Empiricism and Positivism, or Inductivism - Which theory is superior?
Since the beginning of humanity, people have sought to innovate and to discover the unknown. Science, being the modern term to describe such endeavours, has played a necessary and substantial role in the development of technology and human society. This being said, the nature and true source of scientific knowledge is still a fiercely debated topic in the realm of philosophers, scientists and the like. The faculty of philosophy of science highlights and debates various theories to which people are said to derive scientific knowledge. Some of these theories include empiricism and positivism, inductivism and many others. All of these outlooks have very different approaches to the topic of the derivation of scientific knowledge. For example, the empiricists and positivists alike believe that scientific knowledge is derived from the facts of experience, whereas Inductivists believe that it should be deduced from theories and claims that have been inductively inferred from observations. Clearly, both of these theories have their allure but at the same time neither is clear of problems. The aim of this paper is to explore and analyse the logic behind these two theories and to decide which should be given the acclaim of superiority and adequacy for modern science.

John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were British empiricists from the seventeenth and eighteenth century who brought the reign of empiricism to

More about Difference Between Empiricism And Positivism And Inductivism

Open Document