The problem of induction is a philosophical dilemma that challenges the validity of knowledge gained through inductive inference introduced by Scottish philosopher David Hume. Inductive inference is a form of reasoning that allows a conclusion to be reached by looking at past experiences. To recognize what disturbs Hume, it is important to understand what deductive and inductive reasoning are. When reasoning moves from the general to the particular, it is often referred to as deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a way of knowing through the conclusion that is drawn from the premises. Inductive reasoning is when reasoning moves from the particular to the general. The premises obviously are going to be opposite to that of deductive premises’
…show more content…
He states that all cause and effect observations were a result of experience and not reasoning. If we look at the previous example, we can see that there is a relationship between GDP and number of years and it is positive. However, the relationship between the two are based on assumptions, not reasoning, therefore if we use experience to reach to a conclusion, we are assuming the future will be like the past. Hume does provide two ways to justify this reasoning, but rejects them later on. Hume first suggests that in order for inductive inference to be justified, the future must logically resemble the past. However, Hume states that there is no way that we can prove or disprove what the future will look like. For example, it has been always known that Toronto experiences snowfall in the winter, this does not guarantee the fact that snow will actually fall in Toronto’s future winters. Therefore, inductive inference cannot be justified deductively, and any attempt to do so will end in a circular justification since its based on the assumption that inductive inference is indeed justified. This concept applies to justifying inductive inference using inductive justification. As mentioned before, this cannot be because of the uncertainty of the future and the emergence of intangible and unexpected events. Hume concludes by stating that inductive inference can only be justified deductively and inductively, and since he discredited the validity of these methods, there is no possible way to justify inductive
He states that all cause and effect observations were a result of experience and not reasoning. If we look at the previous example, we can see that there is a relationship between GDP and number of years and it is positive. However, the relationship between the two are based on assumptions, not reasoning, therefore if we use experience to reach to a conclusion, we are assuming the future will be like the past. Hume does provide two ways to justify this reasoning, but rejects them later on. Hume first suggests that in order for inductive inference to be justified, the future must logically resemble the past. However, Hume states that there is no way that we can prove or disprove what the future will look like. For example, it has been always known that Toronto experiences snowfall in the winter, this does not guarantee the fact that snow will actually fall in Toronto’s future winters. Therefore, inductive inference cannot be justified deductively, and any attempt to do so will end in a circular justification since its based on the assumption that inductive inference is indeed justified. This concept applies to justifying inductive inference using inductive justification. As mentioned before, this cannot be because of the uncertainty of the future and the emergence of intangible and unexpected events. Hume concludes by stating that inductive inference can only be justified deductively and inductively, and since he discredited the validity of these methods, there is no possible way to justify inductive