# Induction In David Hume's Argument

Great Essays
One very impressive attack on Hume’s argument, trying to solve it with its definition, is as follows. The first premise of the argument is challenged, which is “if we want induction to be rationally justified, induction must be reliable.” Since the definition of deduction is based on the validity of an argument, which is assumed to be reliable, why couldn’t reliability be a part of the definition of induction? Induction is defined to be reliable in this attack. However, reliability cannot be a part of the definition because it is a way to evaluate those methods, such as deduction and induction. The criteria for the evaluation is a totally different idea than the method itself. An analogy useful to understand this is that the recipe for a course …show more content…
If induction cannot take reliability as a definition because a method cannot be defined as reliable by definition, deduction must not be seen as reliable by definition as well, because deduction should also be treated as a methodology and same as induction. What is the difference between deduction and induction that makes deduction automatically true and we need to prove the reliability of induction to use it? Ideally, we also need to prove the legitimacy of the deduction before using it as a reliable way. We normally don’t do that. Someone may say that deduction is true by logic. Then the same question comes again. How do we know that the logic is reliable except for we intuitively think it is? This may seem to be question begging, but that is how things naturally go if you doubt the legitimacy of the basic methodology we use. 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

## Related Documents

• Improved Essays

Empirical arguments state that truths are grounded in sensory experience. It can be inferred that things exist, simply because we observe them. For a proposition to be considered true, it must line up with reality; and for there to be objective truths, there must be an objective reality. There is no point in debating the fact of this, as one would simply be debating with his or her own self in his or her own reality. 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.…

• 1153 Words
• 5 Pages
Improved Essays
• Improved Essays

They show that justification, truth, and belief conditions are insufficient for knowledge, and that JTB is an incorrect analysis. This leads to the question: how is knowledge defined? The challenge of the Gettier problem is to modify or replace JTB according so that there is a ‘Gettier-proof’ definition of knowledge. I will now argue for the view that Alvin Goldman’s causal theory best solves the Gettier problem. Goldman’s causal theory proposes that the failing within Gettier cases is one of causality, in which the justified true belief is caused too oddly or abnormally to be knowledge.…

• 924 Words
• 4 Pages
Improved Essays
• Improved Essays

The argument from ignorance presents difficulties that simply place into question one’s confidence when answering a vague question. Wolgast and Stroud demonstrate the improper context and meaning of the argument, in which we are forced to provide an answer. However, if the answer provided has any correlation with our knowledge obtained through the senses, then it is not a satisfiable answer. Similar to the example that Stroud’s example, if one attempts to provide an answer by using a method (e.g. a test tube)—assuming that knowledge is a necessary condition—then such proof would…

• 934 Words
• 4 Pages
Improved Essays
• Improved Essays

Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially. A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure…

• 1084 Words
• 5 Pages
Improved Essays
• Improved Essays

Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

• 850 Words
• 4 Pages
Improved Essays
• Improved 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…

• 808 Words
• 4 Pages
Improved Essays
• Superior Essays

This connection is rather implied by her statement on how virtues entail truth. When we look at the parallel between justification and virtue then we understand that justification for an act can be flawed by the Gettier case; however a virtue-based act cannot because of the assumption that the act itself contains truth. The problem is she does not specify how here definition satisfies this, and if it does then it seems to be ad hoc. Considering that she even states that, “her definition is not guaranteed to fail,” we must understand that saying a definition is not guaranteed to fail is different from saying it satisfies the criteria for always working. Given a situation where the agent utilizes double luck to acquire knowledge when a virtue-based act replaces justification makes us dissect the aspect of arrival.…

• 1068 Words
• 5 Pages
Superior Essays
• Superior Essays

He says that if reason or the understanding, which he often equates with this conception of reason, did determine the belief, then it would have to proceed upon a principle which is well-founded, a just conclusion; the transition would have to be a just inference and the conclusion built on solid reasoning. He then proceeds to show that these conditions are not fulfilled in these instances, for we in fact have "no reason to believe these things. It is because the beliefs are unreasonable, then, that reason cannot be the source of them. Thus Hume, like…

• 2418 Words
• 10 Pages
Superior Essays
• Improved Essays

The definition of validity is given as: “in a valid argument, the conclusion has been correctly inferred from the premises”. Because of the problem of induction, a conclusion cannot necessarily be true if the premises are not definite. If the argument cannot be valid, it also cannot be sound. However, inductive arguments are not therefore useless, but instead must be analysed differently. Though an inductive argument can never be certain, an argument can be strong or weak dependent on the number of times it has been observed .…

• 1811 Words
• 8 Pages
Improved Essays
• Superior Essays

Rather, my point is that whatever process someone proposes as the process of justification should attempt or try to track truth. However, justification by theory-laden perception doesn’t remotely track truth, it actually allows any belief to be justified if it penetrates cognition, i.e. anything goes. Here’s an example from the moral domain to make clear why letting anything go in terms of justification is problematic. Assume that moral theory-laden perception is true.…

• 1550 Words
• 7 Pages
Superior Essays