Induction In David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Good Essays
The problem of induction is the question if inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood on the philosophical sense on the lack of justification that, generalizing about properties of similar observations, and assuming a sequence of events will occur in the future the same way as they have done in the past. Hume believes that, “we have no reason to believe the conclusion of any inductive argument.” Inductive means to look for strong evidence to find the truth of a conclusion. In Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he is trying to doubt the hope that the reader can have many reasonable beliefs. Hume does this using a priori and a posteriori statements. An a priori statement is the process of reasoning without a reference to certain …show more content…
An a posteriori justification would have to come from experience and lead to a conclusion. Reasons for believing the uniformity of nature would either have to be an inductive or deductive argument. Deductive reasoning comes up with a conclusion based on multiple ideas are assumed true. A deductive argument will not be a good reason because no experiences will have reasons to imply anything about the future. Inductive will not work because it would make the argument circular. Using induction we come up with conclusions based on our past experiences, but we can not use it because all inductive arguments for conclusions for the future are assumed uniformity of nature. The argument needs uniformity of nature as a foundation. There fore there is no reason to believe in the uniformity of nature, therefore no reason to believe that the problem of induction has a solution. “Even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on reasoning of any process of the understanding" (Hume, pg. …show more content…
People for thousands of years have had experiences in the past, and then have experienced the same things in the future. For example, when you touch a hot stove it will burn you, therefore the next time you touch a hot stove it will burn you. I believe that people need to have these experiences to be able to learn knowledge. If a person does not believe every time they touch the hot stove it will burn them, they will not learn many new experiences and be left with painful, burned hands. I believe a posteriori statements can give justification to the future in the same way it has done in the past, but I also believe that a priori statements are necessary to become more knowledgeable. If a person just based their assumptions on the future from their experiences from the past, they would not be as eager to learn more. Theories are not created by experience but by discoveries of something new. I believe that a posteriori statements slow down the process of creating the future. I am not sure what statement would be the better option, because I believe that you need a little bit of both to assume and create the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Yet there is a strong contraction that even Russell does not address. Russell says we must “free our minds” through careful examinations of our beliefs, that we mustn’t have anything to base what we think upon, and we must critically examine all we think and not believe it fully. Philosophers who demand us to find proof and unanswerable answers are never held to that standard themselves. I may believe one thing, truly believe that I’m dogmatically correct, and they will still question my rightness. Yet there is no one asking philosophers why their beliefs are theirs.…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    You start to doubt everything. In this way, if the reliability of deduction is in doubt, there is no way that we can use the deduction to prove the unreliability of induction. Then the foundation of the problem of induction is broken, because the problem of induction is an argument made in the form of deduction. The existence of the problem of induction needs the method of deduction to be…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cosmological Argument

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The first opposition he brings upon the cosmological argument is that “Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary applies a contradiction.” This opposing argument says that if we conceive something to exist, we also conceive that thing to not exist; and there is no bring in which its existence implies a contradiction. If this is the case, then there is no being thats existence proves to be necessary. Cleanthes also asks “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity?” (Cleanthes, First Philosophy, pg.80.) This argument is bringing to light the question of whether or not we can assume we know God’s properties, if we in fact cannot settle on exactly what the philosopher 's God can or cannot do. There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss.…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    is unacceptable for scientific reasons, the second (ii. or iii.) for epistemological reasons. Let’s start with the former. The problem here is that we don’t have, Street says, an account for how the evolution pushed us towards the independent moral truths because the best scientific attempts to explain how the evolutionary past influenced our moral judgments do not make any reference to the moral truths.…

    • 1082 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If James’s theory was accepted, this would lead to ignorance and will hinder the maximization of true beliefs. Preconceptions heavily influence what one wills to believe. If these preconceptions are tainted by false knowledge, formation of new beliefs becomes difficult and can result in more truths being ignored. Without criticizing and discussing beliefs James’s idea of maximizing true beliefs is not…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Heraclitus and Parmenides both attempt to answer a seemingly simple but complex question about change: Is change real? Their answers lie in opposing sides of the discussion since Heraclitus believes change to be possible, while Parmenides denies the concept of change. Heraclitus believes that all things flow and are part of cycles in which they change, becoming what they are not. He also believes in a circular flow of change, explaining that some processes yield the same result with which it started. Parmenides argues that change isn’t possible because, in order for change to occur, something has to come from nothing, and nothing doesn’t exist.…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I will argue that induction cannot be a basis for justified true beliefs (Knowledge - certainty) as we haven 't come around any way for its justification. Moreover we will see how we can possibly justify the use of the scientific method using Popper’s Fallibilist approach. Induction can be defined as a basic belief that is justified by inductive inference. In other words, we accept a belief as being true only because it has proven to be true in the past even though we have no certain means to show it will be true in the future. Let us consider how induction is…

    • 2178 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Furthermore B would not be justified in his belief of P as he/she would have justification for retaining the apparent memories but would not be justified in his/her acquisition of the memory. I would respond by asserting that if we were to blindly question A and B, there would be no way in telling whose memory acquisition is genuine or not. The fact that they have the same memories makes it so that their thought process and knowledge in general is exactly the same. Using Russell’s hypothesis, it is clear that Huemer’s theory fails, as it does not offer the full answer for how we can be justified in our…

    • 436 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays