One variant of inductivism tells us that induction is the way in which we discover and prove hypotheses. Two falsificationist objections to this variant of inductivism, however, are that it does not take into account the creativity required in order to discover hypotheses and that it is overconfident about induction.
First, explain this variant of inductivism, the two objections to it and how they might be addressed by a less nai¨ve version of inductivism. Then consider how the falsificationist would respond to this less nai¨ve version of inductivism, including to the idea that induction justifies hypotheses. Do you agree with the falsificationist response? Why or why not?
Leave a Reply