top of page

Science: It Works!

I consider Science to be Inductive: Science is driven by what we see and observe around us. Empiricism is the heart of science. We then create models (often called theories) that describe, often with great accuracy, what we observe. These theories then allow us to predict how things will behave in the future. 

I think it is very important to educate people on the inductive nature of science. Even scientists have been confused by the ultimately misguided ideas of Science proposed by the likes of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Popper was primarily trying to solve the "demarcation" problem, i.e. trying to find criteria that separate science from non-science such as the teachings of Freud. Kuhn was primarily a historian of Science. 

As for the philosophical problem of induction, I prefer the inductive solution: look around and you will notice that Science Works!!

I would argue that the inductive solution to the problem of induction is implicitly followed by scientists and Science Departments throughout the world. Not to mention technology companies. Science works, so let's get on with the job! It may not satisfy everyone in philosophy departments, and that is fine. That is why we have Philosophy Departments.


However, an inductive view of science should be enough for our legal system and for our Law Departments. I fear that our legal scholars interact far more with philosophy departments and sociologists than with scientists and Science Departments. Understanding science as empirical and inductive, and what follows from that, provides a clear view of how science should be adopted into our legal system. For example, by emphasising the requirement of Error Rates in forensics, and more generally the requirement of scientific reliability

Science: Text

Follow the science...

bottom of page