industrial relations 2287

testing lay observation which apparently
relied upon some form of inductive inference
from experience to the observation statements
describing that experience. Since this would re
raise a variation of Humes problem, deductivism
was forced to recognize the unavoidably theory
laden and conventional character of observa
tion. The traditional logical positivist reliance
on the distinction between theory language and
observation language simply would not do. The
language of observation was no less theoretical
than the language of theory.
None of this, of course, dissolves the pro
blem of inductive inference, if problem it is, for
even if induction is not the defining element in
so called scientific method it remains an impor
tant feature of actual scientific practice. Scien
tists make inductive inferences, albeit within a
context of inquiry which also involves deduc
tion, intuition, competition, and even sheer
bloody mindedness. Accordingly, philosophers
of science have continued to examine induction
with a view to somehow resolving or bypassing
the Humean difficulties. Within the pragmatist
tradition, for example, Rescher (1980) has
sought to reconceive inductive inference as
essentially a kind of cognitive method, while
others, such as Howson (2000), who retain more
formal concerns, have leaned toward Bayesian
probability theory as providing grounds for
resolving at least some of Humes problem(s).
Such approaches are often illuminating about
what kinds of presuppositions are involved in
inductive practice, although their apparent goal
of providing justification seems far less signif
icant in a period which has come more fully to
recognize the importance of sociological and
psychological factors in scientific inquiry. Here,
Collinss (1985: 145) sociological resolution of
the problem of induction is interesting. By
empirical examination of what he calls the
experimenters regress, he seeks to show that
the nature of experiments as skillful practice
means that an attempted replication always leads
to the necessity for yet further experimental tests
to confirm the quality of each experiment in the
chain. This regress can only be halted by con
tingent, collective decision. Observing, experi
menting, and constituting facts, then, are
socially constructed achievements of human
agents; they cannot, without loss, be rendered
as logically justified processes under the grand
rubric of Inductive Scientific Method.
SEE ALSO: Controversy Studies; Experiment;
Fact, Theory, and Hypothesis: Including the
History of the Scientific Fact; Falsification;
Laboratory Studies and the World of the
Scientific Lab; Positivism; Realism and Relati
vism: Truth and Objectivity

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED
READINGS

Black, M. (1967) Induction. In: Edwards, P. (Ed.),
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 4. Macmillan,
New York.
Collins, H. M. (1985) Changing Order: Replication
and Induction in Scientific Practice. Sage, London.
Goodman, N. (1973) The New Riddle of Induction. In:
Goodman, N., Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Bobbs-
Merrill, New York.
Howson, C. (2000) Humes Problem: Induction and the
Justification of Belief. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hume, D. (1999) An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life:
The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton.
Medawar, P. B. (1969) Induction and Intuition in
Scientific Thought. Methuen, London.
Rescher, N. (1980) Induction: An Essay on the Justi
fication of Inductive Reasoning. Blackwell, Oxford.

industrial relations

John Hogan and Peter Nolan

The material origins of industrial relations,
both in practice and in research, can be traced
to the movement from early to advanced capit
alism. The rise of capitalism, centering on the
purchase and sale of labor power, ushered in a
new structure of relations between the direct
producers and their controllers. Workers were
brought together in centralized work stations
and subjected to an authority relationship and
hierarchical division of labor. The bosses had
the right to hire and fire their charges, set their
wages, and dictate the hours and intensity of