Hume's Argument Against Induction
According to the empiricist English philosopher David Hume, inductive logic is inherently invalid. Hume took an extremely radical view of empiricism, the point of philosophical view that immediate, perceptual experience alone should validate inquiry into the nature of human existence and the nature of reality. Inductive logic is derived from assumptions and hypothesis about natural laws that govern the universe. Because every situation is different, Hume believed, every situation can and must be judged upon its own terms. One cannot assume because something happened in the past it will happen again in the future.
Induction depends upon a series of assumptions about something and generates the hypothesis that is event must always the case, based on a predictability of observations that validates a proposed hypothesis. Thus for Hume it was just as invalid as deductive logic, or making rationalist judgments based upon categorical assumptions. I might assume inductively that because I have seen the sun rise in the sky every day for my entire life that it will do so again tomorrow. But tomorrow the world might end.
For Hume, the main materials of thinking are perceptions and are derived either from immediate sensations or internal perceptions. Internal perceptions or rational human musings, or inductive hypothesis generated from assumptions about predictable experience are by definition less full of force and vivacity than those generated from experience. Hume divided human perceptions into two categories, each distinguished by their different degrees of force and vivacity." Ideas are "more feeble" and ultimately derived from less lively impressions unlike perceptions derived from immediate experiences. (EHU, Section II). Induction is based upon ideas, in other words it is an internal summary of experiences of the moment, rather than something specific to an immediate occurance.
Work Cited
Hume, David. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd edition revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Hume's Problem Of Induction David Hume is known as one of the foremost skeptics and humanists of his time, who exalted in mankind's ability to transform the world through science. Somewhat ironically, then, one of his most far-reaching philosophical contributions was to phrase the problem of induction which today is often thought to deny scientific knowledge. Just a couple chapters of a single book, Hume posed a question which has yet
This is the problem of induction in a nutshell, and it is something that has alternatively been seen as one of the most severe limitations on true knowledge about the world or as a non-issue in any practical terms. If inductive reasoning cannot be trusted, then all past experience and even experimental data is essentially meaningless in predicting the future and there is no logical reason to assume things should
Descartes systematic approach to establishing an understanding of that which is rationally true inherently called on him to reject all assumed notions of what was true. This 'atheist' thought which he rejected would be characterized by its unfounded but universally accepted nature. By casting doubt and applying testing methods to assumed facts, Descartes sought to provide a living framework entirely governed by empiricism. Such a doctrine inclined Descartes to
David Hume, in the fifth section of his work entitled, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, dismisses the concept that reasoning is the foundation upon which conclusions are necessarily drawn. As an empiricist, Hume believed that it was essential that individuals obtain knowledge based upon their own experience and observations. He classified knowledge into two types: the relations between ideas and matters of fact. In Hume's mind, mathematics is the classic
Goodman, some properties (like being green) figure in good inductive reasoning, and other properties (like being grue) do not. In our terms: some properties are projectable and other properties are non-projectable. Explain precisely what he means by this (you will want to explain what he means by 'inductive reasoning', and give some examples of projectable and non-projectable properties.) In general, what makes some properties projectable and others not? Philosophers have
All the people know what the brain is, what it looks like and where it is located. This does not however constitute the basis for the idea of min, yet the concept exists and is powerful enough to give birth to endless debate. Kant on the other hand underlines the fact that the properties which the mind has and which allow it to create meaning depend exclusively on the physical
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now