Abstract
Inductive thinking is a universal human habit; we generalise from our experiences the best we can. The induction problem is to identify which observed regularities provide reasonable justification for inductive conclusions. In the natural sciences, we can often use strict laws in making successful inferences about unobserved states of affairs. In the social sciences, by contrast, we have no strict laws, only regularities which most often are conditioned on ceteris paribus clauses. This makes it much more difficult to make reliable inferences in the social sciences. In particular, we want knowledge about general causal relations in order to be able to determine what to do in order to achieve a certain state of affairs. Knowledge about causal relations that are also valid in the future requires experiments or so called ‘natural experiments’. Only knowledge derived from such experiences enable us to draw reasonably reliable inferences about how to act in order to achieve our goals.
Highlights
Inductive thinking is a universal human habit; we generalise from our experiences the best we can
Not even economics, which by some is regarded as the social science most akin to natural science, is a clear success story
The first is that natural science has been practiced for a much longer time than social science
Summary
Inductive thinking is a universal human habit; we generalise from our experiences the best we can. Several economic policy makers repeatedly expressed their bewilderment, just before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, with almost no inflation, zero interest rates and meagre growth in the majority of OECD countries: ‘We are in a new territory’ a spokesperson for the FED reportedly said Why this profound difference between natural and social science?. Natural science began with the pre-Socratic philosophers (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Democritus and some others) practicing natural philosophy, and Aristotle’s book Physics, published circa 350 BC, was the first systematic attempt to study change and motion It took a very long time, more than 2000 years, before the first real breakthrough in this inquiry came with Galilei’s and Newton’s analysis of motion. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
