The Problem Of Induction And Induction

Induction is a form of reasoning where the premises support the conclusion, but do not confirm that the conclusion is true. To justify induction, we are required to justify that we can infer that experiences we have never experienced will resemble those that we have experienced. Making inductive inferences is necessary for everyday life as well as in science. It is rational to rely on inductive arguments in everyday life for claims such as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” But inductive arguments require that nature is uniform. For example, tomorrow the laws of physics will continue to work the same as how they have in the past, so the world will continue spinning and the sun will rise. This perceived uniformity (the principle of uniformity of nature) allows claims like the one previously outlined to be easily understood. Although inductive arguments are useful, whether or not they can be justified is a topic of debate. In James Van Cleve’s “Reliability, Justification and the Problem of Induction,” he uses an inductive argument to attempt to justify induction. In his justification he claims that his method of argument is not circular. I argue that his reasoning is problematic because an inductive argument is not able to justify induction, mainly because inductive arguments presuppose the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

In this paper I discuss both Hume’s and Anscombe’s view on causation. I begin with Hume and his regularity theory; then I move onto Anscombe where I provide a rebuttal of Hume’s regularity theory, and later I explain how Hume would respond to Anscombe’s objection to Hume’s regularity theory.

In other words he is saying that no matter how good or reliable a testimony may be, it can never as it were on the basis of experience be justified to accept that testimony over and against what stands as testimony against the miracle happening. The testimony happens to be the laws of nature themselves. In this sense it is clear that Hume is giving us a priori argument in Part 1 in that he is saying that miracles are contrary to reason. However I think it would be easier to accept this view if Hume had not previously discussed his Induction theory. In regard that he thought that for example that just because the sun has risen every day so far, it does not necessarily follow that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no rational basis in believing it will. However in regard to miracles he tells us to base our decisions on past experiences, if it is unlikely it is less likely to be true. So in that sense we should also be able to say that based on our past experiences the sun will definitely rise tomorrow? Also if the sun was not to rise, surely that would be a miracle in the sense that it would be a violation of the laws of nature? And what is exactly a violation of natural laws? Dorothy Coleman points out “past experience shows that what are at one time considered violations of natural laws are frequently found

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Alvin Goldman's paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" does not solve the problem in Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" To argue the old view of knowledge, Gettier presents a case in which a Subject (S) is justified in believing that a proposition (P) and P entails another proposition (Q). S deduces Q from P and accepts Q. Then S is justified in believing Q. In the first Case that Gettier presents however, P is falsely justified, but Q is a true justified belief: Smith (S) is justified in believing that Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket (P). Thus, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (Q). S is justified in

Therefore, it can be asserted that knowledge gained from causality is not a priori, rather a posteriori, which is knowledge gained from experience and empirical evidence.

“A Personalised Induction will always be more effective”. Discuss. Base your answer on theoretical concepts and techniques presented in class.

This is the assumption underlying all our ideas of causality. If the future does not resemble the past, then all our reason based on cause and effect will crumble. When Hume proposed questions such as “Is there any more intelligible proposition then to affirm that all trees will flourish in December and January, and will decay in May and June?” (49), Hume demonstrates that it is not a relation of ideas that future will resemble the past; it is possible that the course of nature will change. Therefore, what happens in the future is neither a relation of ideas, nor a matter of fact. “It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of past to future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.”(51)

In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

The controversy within the field and study of Philosophy is continuously progressing. Many ideas are prepared, and challenged by other philosophers causing the original idea to be analyzed more thoroughly. One of the cases that challenge many philosophers is The Problem of Induction. David Hume introduced the world to The Problem of Induction. The Problem of Induction claims that, past experiences can lead to future experiences. In this essay, I will explain how the problem of induction does not lead to reasonable solutions instead it causes philosophers more problems.

The process of induction in our organizations is poor and unsatisfactory which needs to change and for that we will amend the induction policy. It’s a huge project and it will require continuous input from different individuals for the best results.

Furthermore, there are three main aspects which were customarily associated with a science: metaphysical, theoretical and methodological assumptions. Under metaphysical it is believed that to gain scientific status requires the certainty that the subject matter i.e. human thought/ behaviour, is similar to that of other accepted sciences. This could then be true for Psychology, as particularly since Darwin’s suggestion of a continuity between behaviours of humans and other species, behaviour has become more scrutinised. However, this must be assumed in respect of determinism, suggesting predictions could be made. ‘Heisenbergs uncertainty principle’ suggests that when relating evidence of indeterminism within the universe to human behaviour, it proves ambiguous, and with parts of the discipline believing strongly in free will it seems difficult to establish a common ground (Valentine E.R. page 2).

In his work “Conjectures and Refutations,” Popper discussed several aspects of induction including the topics of conjectures (opinions or conclusions formed on the basis of incomplete information) or tentative theories and refutations (ways to refute an argument, opinion, testimony, doctrine, or theory, through contradicting evidence) or the acts of disproving arguments through counterexamples (Oxford).

It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.

Hume did not deny causation. He embraced it. But he did say that empirical methods could not logically prove its necessity, as observations only show a "constant conjunction" of events, a "regular succession" of A followed by B, which leads the mind to the inference of cause and effect. For Hume, causality is something humans naturally believe.