Question 1
The broad inductivist account of the scientific method has evolved from that of the naïve inductivist method. However, unlike naïve inductivism, it rejects the notion of theory-free observation. It also rejects that induction is used to formulate theory. The Sophisticated inductivist’s account of scientific method is as follows: One starts with a problem (an unexplained observation, one that is not understood). Having made this observation, one must formulate an explanatory hypothesis for why/how this observation occurred. (How this is done is not stipulated) One must then derive observable consequences of the hypothesis in order to test it, and then test to check whether it indeed holds, and if so, model the theory.
If we needed to understand something regarding how the world works, given a puzzling observation, intuitively we would follow these steps: We’d presuppose an explanation; test it under certain conditions to evaluate whether it holds; and either: feel justified in believing our hypothesis if it did hold; or formulate another and re-test if it didn’t. Sophisticated inductivism is an appealing account of the scientific method because it fulfils this basic intuition of how scientific research is conducted. It may not necessarily justify why we are able to believe what we’ve ‘proven’ but it fulfils the intuition nonetheless.
Question 2
The paradox of confirmations is a strong criticism against broad inductivism but not a criticism that can’t be constructively used to better it. The paradox of confirmations relies on the logical equivalence of the statement “All A’s are B’s” and the statement “All ~B’s are ~A’s”. (Where ‘A’ and ‘B’ are general terms.) The logic is irrefutable and to attempt to contest it would ...