Induction Without A Problem Summary

The Problem of Induction and Induction Without a Problem are two similar writings both talking about induction and how it affects the way we believe. Though they may both talk about induction and their similarities, there are also a few differences between the two stories. The main question being do you need scientific support for induction? In my opinion you do, because without the support, you base it off knowledge and knowledge can misguide you at times.
In The Problem of Induction, Russell talks about how we assume the sun will rise because it’s something we have learned and come to know. Our experience with things has shown us repetition; therefore we expect it to always happen (Russell 104). When we see something come up, and have a guaranteed assumption …show more content…
This then, can affect your knowledge of something, changing the way you look at it. It also talks about how we become correlated with things from habit. The reason we believe certain things in science apply is because they has worked thus far, meaning they will work in the future as well. Induction Without a Problem, talks about science and evidence being the main source of the information we have gathered. For example it states how “it would be foolish to use methods different from scientific ones” (Strawson 106). It also talks about how “having inductive support is an important condition of success as a method (Strawson 107)” therefore stating it is necessary to use science to figure out how induction works. If it is successful multiple times, it then becomes an inductively supported method. We may doubt certain things, but the doubt seems to dissipate when proof is brought to our attention about it. While one story states how you need science and support, the other (The Problem of Induction) shows how it is not necessary, although more believable, because we acquire our answers from