Hume’s argument against induction is that “only meaningful propositions are relations of idea and matter of fact”. This meaning that the claim must be priori or a posteriori. However, Hume contradicts himself because his own argument does not meet his own criteria of a meaningful proposition. This is because his statement is not a relation of ideas or a matter of fact.
What is Hume’s problem of induction?
Hume’s problem of induction strikes at the very foundation of empirical science. Following Hume, all inductive reasoning should be accompanied by a disclaimer, warning that every connection with reality is based on pure coincidence. Bertrand Russell thought that Hume’s philosophy ‘represents the bankruptcy of eighteenth-century reasonableness’.
What is the main idea of the problem of induction?
1. Hume’s Problem. Hume introduces the problem of induction as part of an analysis of the notions of cause and effect. Hume worked with a picture, widespread in the early modern period, in which the mind was populated with mental entities called “ideas”.
Is Hume’s argument for inductive skepticism true?
No matter who is right about this however, the fact remains that Hume has throughout history been predominantly read as presenting an argument for inductive skepticism. Even if one does attribute a normative conclusion to Hume, one may question his argument by asking whether premise P8 is true.
What is the response to the problem posed by Hume?
Several arguments have been developed in response to the problem posed by Hume. Hume’s argument depends on the claim that all inductive inferences presuppose the Uniformity Principle and that this principle can not be derived from reason, but only from observation.
Why is induction a problem for Hume?
The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89).
What is Hume's critique of induction?
Hume does not challenge that induction is performed by the human mind automatically, but rather hopes to show more clearly how much human inference depends on inductive—not a priori—reasoning.
What are Hume's two arguments regarding the principle of induction?
The core of Hume's argument is the claim that all probable arguments presuppose that the future resembles the past (the Uniformity Principle) and that the Uniformity Principle is a matter of fact.
What does Hume say about inductive?
Hume famously says that what causes us to make inductive inferences is not our grasp of a sound principle that we know through observation or through a priori reasoning. Instead, we make inductive inferences because we are habituated to do so because of the way our minds and sensory faculties are wired.
What is Hume's skeptical argument about induction quizlet?
What is Hume's problem of induction? there can be no non-circular rational justification of inductive reasoning.
Does Hume believe in inductive reasoning?
Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences. He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference.
What is an argument by induction?
An inductive argument is the use of collected instances of evidence of something specific to support a general conclusion. Inductive reasoning is used to show the likelihood that an argument will prove true in the future.
What is the new problem of induction?
The new riddle of induction, for Goodman, rests on our ability to distinguish lawlike from non-lawlike generalizations. Lawlike generalizations are capable of confirmation while non-lawlike generalizations are not. Lawlike generalizations are required for making predictions.
What is the old problem of induction?
5.1 The Old Problem of Induction is a Pseudo-problem The old problem of induction is the problem of justifying inductive inferences. What is traditionally required from such a justification is an argument that establishes that using inductive inferences does not lead us astray.
How does Hume argue that inductive reasoning is not rationally justified?
In the end, Hume despairs. He sees no way to rationally justify inductive reasoning. This is a form of skepticism (about inductively acquired beliefs): We don't have knowledge that we are tempted to think that we do. Our beliefs that come to us through inductive reasoning are in reality not rationally justifiable.
What is an argument by induction?
An inductive argument is the use of collected instances of evidence of something specific to support a general conclusion. Inductive reasoning is used to show the likelihood that an argument will prove true in the future.
Is there any good answer to the problem of induction?
The most common solution to the problem of induction is to unshackle it from deduction. In this view, induction was mistakenly jury-rigged into a system of deductive inference where it did not belong, i.e. induction was considered subordinate to the apparatus of basic logic.
What is the new problem of induction?
The new riddle of induction, for Goodman, rests on our ability to distinguish lawlike from non-lawlike generalizations. Lawlike generalizations are capable of confirmation while non-lawlike generalizations are not. Lawlike generalizations are required for making predictions.
Tackling The First Horn of Hume’S Dilemma
The first horn of Hume’s argument, as formulated above, is aimedat establishing that there is no demonstrative argument for the UP. Anumber of phil...
Tackling The Second Horn of Hume’S Dilemma
So far we have considered ways in which the first horn of Hume’sdilemma might be tackled. But it is of course also possible to take onthe second ho...
The Necessary Conditions For Justification
Hume is usually read as delivering a negative verdict on thepossibility of justifying inference I, via a premise such as P8. There are however some...
Living With Inductive Skepticism
So far we have considered the various ways in which we might attemptto solve the problem of induction by resisting one or other premise ofHume’s ar...
What is Hume's theory of induction?
Hume introduces the problem of induction as part of an analysis of the notions of cause and effect. Hume worked with a picture, widespread in the early modern period, in which the mind was populated with mental entities called “ideas”.
What is Hume's argument?
Hume’s argument is one of the most famous in philosophy. A number of philosophers have attempted solutions to the problem, but a significant number have embraced his conclusion that it is insoluble. There is also a wide spectrum of opinion on the significance of the problem. Some have argued that Hume’s argument does not establish any far-reaching ...
How to construct an a priori argument that the premises of an inductive inference make its conclusion probable?
Another way in which one can try to construct an a priori argument that the premises of an inductive inference make its conclusion probable, is to make use of the formalism of probability theory itself. At the time Hume wrote, probabilities were used to analyze games of chance. And in general, they were used to address the problem of what we would expect to see, given that a certain cause was known to be operative. This is the so-called problem of “direct inference”. However, the problem of induction concerns the “inverse” problem of determining the cause or general hypothesis, given particular observations.
Why can't demonstrative arguments be used in inductive inference?
The first horn of Hume’s dilemma implies that there cannot be a demonstrative argument to the conclusion of an inductive inference because it is possible to conceive of the negation of the conclusion. For instance, it is quite possible to imagine that the next piece of bread I eat will poison me rather than nourish me. However, this does not rule out the possibility of a demonstrative argument that establishes only that the bread is highly likely to nourish, not that it definitely will. There are several approaches that attempt to produce a demonstrative argument that the conclusion of an inductive inference is probable, though not certain. If this succeeds, a chain of reasoning based on demonstrative arguments from the premises of inference I to the proposition that the conclusion is probable is not ruled out by Hume’s argument. One might then challenge premise P8 , by saying that it is not necessary for justification of an inductive inference to have a chain of reasoning from its premises to its conclusion. Rather it would suffice if we had an argument from the premises to the claim that the conclusion is probable or likely. Then an a priori justification of the inductive inference would have been provided.
How did Kant respond to Hume?
One possible response to Hume’s problem is to deny premise P3 , by allowing the possibility that a priori reasoning could give rise to synthetic propositions. Kant famously argued in response to Hume that such synthetic a priori knowledge is possible (Kant 1781, 1783). He does this by a kind of reversal of the empiricist programme espoused by Hume. Whereas Hume tried to understand how the concept of a causal or necessary connection could be based on experience, Kant argued instead that experience only comes about through the concepts or “categories” of the understanding. On his view, one can gain a priori knowledge of these concepts, including the concept of causation, by a transcendental argument concerning the necessary preconditions of experience. A more detailed account of Kant’s response to Hume can be found in de Pierris and Friedman 2013.
What is an inductive inference?
Such inferences from the observed to the unobserved, or to general laws, are known as “inductive inferences”.
Why is Hume's argument not a skeptical conclusion?
Some have argued that Hume’s argument does not establish any far-reaching skeptical conclusion, either because it was never intended to, or because the argument is in some way misformulated.
How did Furedi construct his argument?
Furedi constructed his argument in a manner in which he scrutinized the opposing argument in order to provide evidence for his inevitable conclusion on the subject. He used the so-called “dangers of reading” to show how powerful and insightful books can be. The two diverse structures within both of the texts represent how the same message can be propagated in different
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?
In Christopher Hitchens’ saying “What which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” Hitchens’ is claiming that if you do not have evidence to support your claim it should be disproved automatically. In other words, evidence to Hitchens is the necessary condition to substantiate the knowledge. To try to understand Hitchens’ intention, I make an assumption that this statement may have derived from his disbelief mostly in the area of knowledge of faith. However, at a closer inspection, one can interpret the word “what” in a saying in a much larger context than in the area of faith, and thus proving that his saying may need more thorough investigation especially in other areas of knowledge. Another key in his saying
What is the straw man fallacy?
The authors describe the straw man fallacy as an argument when a writer constructs a misinterpreted version of an argument that distorts its original meaning and intentions in order to criticizes it as if it were the real argument (401). The either/or fallacy is explained as two choices that are presented as if they are the only two choices and there are no other options or anything in-between (401). The authors describe the false analogy fallacy as an argument that takes advantage of similarities between entities to provide a basis for the inference that these entities might also share some other property (401). Latin is used to title another logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, meaning "After this, therefore, because of this." This is a belief that because event B happened after event A it was a result by event A (401).
What are the common sense beliefs of John Locke?
Common sense beliefs about perception include that we directly perceive objects and that we perceive objects as they truly are . John Locke, an English philosopher of the 17th century, challenged both of these beliefs. In this paper, I will explain Locke’s reasoning against these beliefs by illustrating his arguments for the primary quality/secondary quality distinction, as well as the difference between primary and secondary qualities and between the quality and the idea of the quality. I will also raise an objection for one of these arguments, as presented in lecture.
What is Bernard Williams' essay on utilitarianism?
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences. Smart also discusses how act-Utilitarianism is often associated with hedonism, and that
Did Shrub go to outstanding lengths in his address to recount the facts opposing Hussein?
Indeed, Shrub might have gone to outstanding lengths in his address to recount the facts opposing Hussein. But such justification suggests the demand for validating one 's deeds and acknowledging such a demand fails to communicate certainty. One might additionally squabble that lacking ample facts Shrub could flounder to change Americans who
Why does Hume use induction?
As a result, Hume moves on to our use of induction to justify the generalizations we make concerning relations between certain events and their happening in the future.
What is the significance of Hume's distinction?
The significance of this distinction, for Hume, is the following: Humans use matters of facts to make causal claims about unobserved events and the future.
Why does Karl Popper use deductive logic?
Another objection raised by Karl Popper applies deductive logic to certain scientific claims in order to free us from inductive skepticism. This solution attempts to assign truth values to propositions that concern future events by falsifying the proposition and proving that the proposition is false by past and present observations (Henderson 1).
Why is it impossible to falsify a proposition of self-identity?
An attempt to falsify a proposition of self-identity is impossible, because the statement would read a=~a or “the chair is not identical to itself.”. This represents a logical contradiction, and such a proposition is known a priori because it takes absolutely no investigation to reach the truth of the expression.
Why are propositions immune to falsification?
They are immune from falsification because attempting to make the relation false would be a logical contradiction (Hume, Pg. 15). These propositions are often mathematically expressed and are not contingently dependent on any given set of experiences, data sets, or circumstances at a particular time.
What does Hume say about our minds?
Hume concedes that our minds are set up to have certain expectations in our everyday lives with the sections that follow on custom and habit which merit their own full discussion in other essays. Hume wonders something different, however. Namely, whether or not there is any rational or empirical justification for possessing such expectations. His concession that we act as if we have knowledge of the future does not mean that we are justified by any form of reasoning to do so because these are two fundamentally different claims.
What is Hume's epistemological claim?
An analysis of Hume’s epistemological claims in “ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”. In Section IV of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume introduces and explains his arguments for claiming that the beliefs we hold concerning unobserved events and the future are unjustified. Hume’s denial that we can hold such knowledge ...
What does Hume say about inductive reasoning?
Hume says that, for example, one may see the sun come up every day, and from this to try to reason that the sun indeed comes up every day, but he says the only thing anyone can know is that the sun has come up every day so far, not that it is a law of nature that the sun comes up every day. Hume argues that we actually have no knowledge of the factors that caused the sun to come up before and hence we cannot know for certain what will happen in the future. Hume says that there is no way of being justified in a conclusion about the cause of actions because we only actually perceive the objects and never causes or laws of nature. Those opposed to inductive reasoning say that when we see successive events where one event appears to cause another, the only thing we actually know is that one event happened and that another event followed, and that no amount of logical reasoning can justifiably lead one to conclude that the earlier event caused the proceeding event to occur.
Why is Hume's argument irrational?
Perhaps the biggest problem with Hume’s argument is that he argued that one can never even be justified to accept a conclusion from inductive reasoning. It is impossible for anyone to truly believe this and to live as if it were true. We all act as if causes and effects are real and we all acknowledge lawlike orderliness in our world. Also, science would be largely impossible within this strict assumption, since science so often involves searching for causes and effects and laws of nature. Additionally, if this were assumed, one would never have any rational basis to go with a tested hypothesis over an untested one. While it makes sense to doubt that utter certainty could be possible from induction, this does not mean that knowledge cannot be gained from induction because justified conclusions do not always have to be utterly certain.
What are the arguments against inductive reasoning?
Arguments against the possibility of gaining knowledge from inductive reasoning are self-defeating in a similar way as those in favor of extreme skepticism, solipsism, and absolute idealism. This is because those who go with a similar line of reasoning as Hume would say that we cannot know laws of nature, but they are still assuming that we can know about some objects and some events, as isolated points of knowledge. It is a part of this line of reasoning that we can know certain isolated points of knowledge, as a general rule. The implication is that this rule is itself a fact that must be a law of nature (or perhaps derived from laws of nature) that the speaker must have come to know somehow. And how else could Hume, or anyone else, know about this other than from observing the world and using inductive reasoning? Also, anyone who denies inductive reasoning leads to genuine knowledge also assumes that people can hear them or read what they say, which are facts that they also must have come to know from induction. A similar problem with Hume’s argument is that any statement that can be approximately paraphrased as “Inductive arguments never give guarantees for how things are” is self-contradictory in a way similar to other constrain-skeptical arguments including transcendental idealism. This is because, even if one assumes that this is true, it is also true that one could only know this fact through the use of inductive reasoning.
What does Hume say about the law of nature?
Indeed, Hume himself makes many statements in the form of a law of nature, for example “When a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle; but will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar in its sensible qualities and appearance.” In this statement, Hume appears to be saying, among other things, that the laws of nature determine that children who come in contact with fire will experience pain. How could Hume have come to know this other than through inductive reasoning?