 Solution

Scientists should take sceptical challenges seriously when they reveal unsupported assumptions or distinguishable sources of error. They need not obtain a proof against every conceivable deception before conducting an experiment. This position concedes the force of some philosophical scepticism while rejecting certainty as the normal standard of scientific warrant.

There are several importantly different challenges. Global philosophical scepticism questions whether an external world exists at all. The problem of induction questions the justification for extending observed regularities to unobserved cases. Local criticism questions a particular instrument, sample or inference. A response appropriate to the last challenge need not answer the first. Repeating a measurement with a second instrument can expose a faulty sensor; it does not prove that all experience is independent of a deceiving agency.

David Hume's challenge to inductive reasoning is especially relevant. A finite record does not deductively entail a universal generalization. Nor can the inference be justified simply by saying that past uses of inductive reasoning succeeded: that argument itself extends a past regularity beyond the observed cases. The possibility that an observed regularity fails tomorrow is not a contradiction. This identifies a real gap between deduction and empirical projection.^[ref]

For example, suppose a metal's measured resistance agrees with $R(T)=R_0[1+\alpha (T-T_0)]$ throughout a tested temperature interval. Both that expression and a rival with an extra term zero throughout the interval fit those measurements exactly, yet can disagree outside it. Additional measurements can discriminate specified rivals, but no finite collection excludes every possible future deviation. The scientific lesson is to state the tested domain, physical assumptions and uncertainty. A linear electrical resistance model can be useful without being a universal law; a phase transition is an independently intelligible reason why extrapolation might fail.

One might reply that successful prediction and scientific replication justify confidence. They certainly distinguish a tested model from an arbitrary guess under the ordinary standards of inquiry. They do not supply the noncircular proof demanded by radical philosophical scepticism. A Bayesian inference similarly makes the dependence on prior probabilities and likelihoods explicit; it does not deduce the correctness of those commitments from no premises. Acknowledging this limit is preferable to claiming that a mathematical updating rule dissolves the problem of induction.

The sceptic nevertheless owes us an account of the practical consequence. If two global possibilities give exactly the same observable consequences under every available intervention, their difference does not identify which laboratory procedure to change. A scientist can suspend judgement about that difference while comparing models that make different predictions. This is a defence of proceeding under fallible standards, rather than a refutation of global philosophical scepticism.

By contrast, local criticism can reorganize an entire research programme. If an apparent signal might be instrument drift, useful responses include independent calibration, reversing a controllable input, measuring an appropriate control and conducting scientific replication. Those procedures make the proposed error account answerable to evidence. Merely imagining that every control could also be deceptive adds no further discriminating test.

The defensible policy is therefore fallibilism: confidence proportionate to the testing and domain, openness to identifiable error, and no claim to absolute foundations. Sceptical arguments matter most when they improve the questions asked of a model. Their inability to be conclusively defeated does not make every model equally warranted or make scientific work irrational.