Hume's Problem Of Induction Analysis

This essay looks to discuss Hume’s problem of induction. The problem of induction claims that inductive reasoning is unjustified, as we have no reason to think that the past is indicative of the future. This essay begins by outlining Hume’s problem of induction. It then argues that the problem with induction according to Hume is that it does not act like deductive reasoning, but that there is no reason to think that induction has to act like deduction. Hume’s problem of induction proceeds as follows. First, Hume states that there are two types of knowledge, relations to ideas and matters of fact. Relations to ideas are known a priori and are thus known deductively. Matters of fact are known a posteriori, since we first have an experience with a matter of fact to know it. The problem of induction arises from these experiences. Through induction, we make claims about the future. To do this, we look at one experience with a specific matter of fact and we infer that all future instances of this matter of fact will be the same. Thus, we believe that the future will be like the past. This assumes that the world is …show more content…
There does not seem to be. Deduction and induction are different, and as such they will both have different qualities. We expect there to be similarities between the two as both are types of reasoning. But this still doesn’t entail that they be exactly the same. Pizza and pasta are both types of Italian food, yet we know that both dishes are not the exactly the same. They are merely similar to one another due to their shared ingredients and origin. As such, two different types of something only need similar to one another. Then, induction and deduction only have to be similar to one another, as they are both a type of reasoning. It follows then that the induction does not have to conform to the rules of deduction, as the two do not have to be the same. Thus, induction does not have to act like