David Hume Problem Of Induction

1394 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Humes problem of induction essay

As humans, a crucial way we attempt to understand how the world around us works is by using previous experiences or evidence from our senses to make predictions about the future. However, how do we know that these predictions are accurate? How are we supposed to know whether future observations and experiences will resemble those of the past? In this essay, I plan to explain what induction is and Hume’s “Problem of Induction”: how he thinks that our beliefs about the future that are based on the past are unjustified. After that, I will present two arguments that he offers against his Problem of Induction, and show how they fail in counterarguing his claim.
Induction is a form of reasoning where humans use past experiences to make future predictions. …show more content…

Hume states that all reasoning related to Matters of Fact is from deriving a relation between cause and effect (Hume, 296). However, the relation between cause and effect is not discovered by reason, either, but also by observation and experience (Hume, 297). Since they are connected by observation only, we can never certainly know whether causal relationships exist, and he claims that effects are distinct from their causes (Sepielli). He offers the example of two billiard balls, where one is moving in a straight line towards the other. He thinks that there are hundreds of events that can result from the billiard balls striking each other, and we cannot be sure which one will occur (Hume, 298). Even if we have examined the billiard balls and the table (Sepielli), and we have observed the same observation every time the balls moved towards each other, Hume believes that we can only use these observations to learn about the balls would be affected here, in the present, but we cannot use them to learn about what will happen in the future. In this case, Hume’s Problem of Induction can be summarized as follows. If we truly believe that the future will be like the past, and we want to justify that belief, but we cannot justify it demonstratively or by yielding similar observations repeatedly, then how are we supposed to justify that

Show More
Related

  • Derek Parfit And The Non-Identity Problem

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...es. Therefore, the mind then mistakenly infers that this series of impressions is an individual persisting individual thing. Causation can also be explained by reusing the act of looking at a red shirt. When I look at a red shirt I know it is red based off of my earlier perceptions or impressions. I then experience the sensation of the color red, which relates to my ideas that I have of that color. And then when I look away, the memory of red still resides in my mind. In addition to causation, Hume’s also suggests propagation. Propagation is similar to regeneration where sensations occur and then memories of those sensations follow. Thus, due to causation and propagation, later stages of the mind are linked to the earlier. But since time is continuous and constantly changing, everything can change, but what stays constant is the concept of causation continuity.

    Read More

  • Hume's and Anscombe's View on Causation

    1237 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”

    Read More

  • Max Black and Humean Skepticism

    1546 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hume’s problem of induction is that inductive reasoning is not, in fact, reasonable. That is, we are not justified in reasoning inductively. This is because he believes that, in order to justify induction, we must use some form of the Uniformity Principle. This Uniformity Principle (henceforth noted as UP) states “[t]hat instances, of which we have had no experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same” (Hume 89). He also believes that “we must provide one of two types of justification for UP: (a) Show that UP is the conclusion of a deductive argument, or (b) show that UP is based on experience” (Crumley 15). He shows that it is not possible to prove this principle deductively because of problems of circularity, and that to show that it is based on experience is to be similarly circular. That is, providing evidence for something and using this as a justification for a believe is precisely what induction is all about, and so one ends up justifying induction through induction. (Crumley 14-16)

    Read More

  • Agreeing With David Hume's Theory on Miracles

    1107 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume states that proof derives from past experience, and probability is the result of opposed experiences, “And as the evidence, derived from witnesses and human testimony, is founded on past experience, so it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as a proof or a probability, according as the conjunction between any particular kind of report” (Enquiry X.1, p. 73-74). To Hume, the probability of something occurring in contradiction to all uniform experiences must always be judged to be less than the probability that the senses are deceiving ...

    Read More

  • Cleanthes In David Hume's Argument From Design

    422 Words  | 1 Pages

    57). Philo points out that despite Cleanthes observations being based in experience, and despite the observed correlations between similar causes and similar effects, that the correlation in this case isn’t reasonable (Hume, 1990, pg. 57). Philo’s argument against Cleanthes view states that with every change of an element in a circumstance, a new experiment is required to prove the previously presumed end result (Hume, 1990, pg. 57). Philo then expresses that only those of inferior thought processes would overlook the dissimilarities (Hume, 1990, pg.

    Read More

  • David Hume on the Existence of Miracles

    1462 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    The closest we get to cause and effect are two distinct phenomena arising together often and the mind thinking one produces the other. Hume regards this as a constant conjunction, not cause and effect. Although this is a leap in reasoning, and we have no reason to believe this to be true, Hume regards this as custom, which is the great guide of life (28). Life would be chaos if we believed in things completely contrary to the regularity of our experience, but the formation of habit is where we can lead ourselves to erroneous judgments. Although Hume's skepticism appears to clear up the mind, it leads him to believe that there is no such thing as causation, which Spinoza disagrees with. Rather, Spinoza argues that nature is all a long chain of causation which gives all causes effects and all effects causes. This system recognizes nature as a mechanism. All causes are a result of nature and the conditions imposed by it. Judging cause and effect individually is missing the point. To say that a billiard ball causes the other one to move only focuses two select phenomena. Rather, God, or nature, is that which connects all phenomena. Thus, the chain of causation cannot be understood of by two simple "links, it must be assessed as a whole. Spinoza argues that there are no free causes, only necessary ones. Thus, all causes are free causes and are a result of nature. This great chain of

    Read More

  • Induction Essay

    874 Words  | 2 Pages

    The definition of induction is a specific form of reasoning which, the premises of an argument supports a conclusion, but do not ensure it. The moment a person makes an observation it is a direct correlation of causes and their effects, they are in fact using induction. Everyone on earth with a brain uses induction to help them make their decisions for the future that were based on past actions they’ve experienced. On the surface, there isn’t anything wrong with making that conclusion, but how can you and I really be sure that the way we came to this conclusion was justified, especially sense I haven’t met every human being on earth with a brain. We assume if you have a brain therefore you’re using induction because we need it to function

    Read More

  • David Hume and Future Occurrences

    1105 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume told us we have no reason to expect the past to resemble he future because of these secret causes. We are preprogrammed psychologically to use induction to function in the world. But we are really not much different than a blind man who has learned to successfully work his way around his home. It is not likely for us to stop using induction because it works in general. But we really have no real rational reason for relying on induction, even though it is psychologically natural. The blind man set out in the world is no longer able to function. He has no a priori connection in mind from two objects.

    Read More

  • David Hume Cleanthes Analysis

    707 Words  | 2 Pages

    In monotheistic faith God is defined with a triad of attributes as being all good, all powerful and all knowing. This triad is what is empirically derived from God being the prime mover. The fact of evil, or theodicy, possess that there exists evil in this world and that this triad cannot exist through that evil conflicts with all three existing at once. The presence of evil means that God lacks one of these attributes because if he had them all, he would not allow evil to exist. If God and evil are to coexist then God must be: all knowing, all powerful, but good enough to want to stop it, lacking the knowledge to know how to stop it, or lacking the power to be able to stop it. In discussing this problem, David Hume uses his three characters:

    Read More

  • Human Understanding

    1502 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...me explains in section V why we believe what we do not know to be true. We learn from experience. Beliefs that are unjustifiable are explained by, humans referring to customs or habit (Hume 28). When humans observe constant conjunction of events they form experience, they then get accustomed to the occurrence and associate them with each other. Hume has used the sun rising as an example before, humans experience the sun rising every morning they associate this with it being morning, and we believe that the sun will rise every morning but cannot prove that it will. Beliefs emerge from sentiments rather than reason. Hume says, “Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past” (Hume 29).

    Read More

  • Problem of Induction

    1208 Words  | 3 Pages

    The problem of induction has a close relation with the inductive reasoning and such expression as “a posteriori”. There are two distinct methods of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive argument is the truth preserving in which if the premises are true than it follows that the conclusion will be true too. The deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific things. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument that may contain true premises and still has a false conclusion. Induction or the inductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which we make a conclusion about future experience or about presence based on the past experience. The problem of induction also has a connection with the expressions as “a priori” and “a posteriori”. The truth in a priori statement is embedded in the statement itself, and the truth is considered to be as common knowledge or justification without the need to experience. Whereas, in order to determine if a pos...

    Read More

  • David Hume On Empiricism

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the end of his Enquiry, Hume leaves us with the tools of relations of ideas and matters of fact, but these however can not explain the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the nature of matter and other such questions. To these, Hume denies that rationalism could ever posit an answer because that answer would be founded in nothing more than reason. If we are left then in a state of immobility where we can only trust or base our knowledge on that which is empirical, how are we to wake up in the morning without feeling are lost? The extreme form of consequent skepticism concludes unhappily that none of our judgments are rationally justified. The only sensible thing to do in that case would be to suspend all judgment and to stop acting altogether. Skepticism is useful in that it places limitations on our reason and makes us doubt what we might otherwise take for granted, but it is ultimately unlivable. I can doubt all I please in the comfort of my study, but in order to get by in the world I must as least assume that there is an external world and that my judgments and actions in that world make some sort of difference.

    Read More

  • Inductive Reasoning

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Inductive reasoning can be quickly summarized as a method through which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases; this conclusion may be applied to another specific case or generalized. All of our conclusions about the world around us, which we rely on daily without question, are dependent on this process. The expectation that our house will not cave in, that water will come from the faucet when turned on, that we will wake the next morning, are all propositions extrapolated from inductive arguments.

    Read More

  • Kant Answer Hume On Causality

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume states that in nature we observe correlated events that are both regular and irregular. For instance, we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has continued to do so time and time again and we assume that thunder will be accompanied by lightning for the same reason. We never observe the causation between a new day and the sun rising or between thunder and lightning, however. We are simply observing two events that correlate in a regular manner. Hume’s skepticism therefore comes from the belief that since we do not observe causal links, we can never truly be sure about what causes anything else. He then goes so far as to say that if this is the case, it must be a fact that nothing causes anything else. In Hume’s theory, there is not only no objective causation, but no objective principle of cause and effect on the whole.

    Read More

More about David Hume Problem Of Induction

Open Document