Innateness In David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Philosophy 4 Paper 2

24645088

Induction Innateness

Inductive reasoning is a process of applying logic in which conclusions are made from ideas, which are believed to be true most of the time. It is based on predictions and behavior.

In David Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, he proposes two types of human enquiry: relations of ideas and matters of fact. The two common examples that represent the two enquiries are mathematics and science. Hume argues that people who rely on induction - cause and effect to perceive the world have no understanding of it since there does not exist any justification for them to believe in induction at the first place.

I would like to argue that even though there seems to be no

logical grounding to believe in the result from inductive reasoning, knowledge in science based on induction is justified in believing because it (induction) is innate to humans. David Hume disagrees with philosophers who argue that human beings have innate ideas within them. He believed that we are born with our minds blank then we acquire ideas and knowledge as we grow.
To support his school of thought, Hume brings up in section IV, an infant touching fire and feeling the burn afterwards, demonstrates the innateness of cause and effect in us.

Hume says, when a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle because he will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar in its sensible qualities and appearance” (Hume, 28). A child, who presumably has no prior knowledge but the capability to acquire the understanding from his experience that if he touches the fire, he will feel the burn. Hume suggests that there is no logical reasoning that an infant can invoke, but only a customary habit, which I largely agree. However, if it is a habit, then why most infants would exhibit the similar response? I contend that induction has the feature of universality. For example, if an infant B knows it would be a pain to touch the fire, and some other infant C will naturally obtain the same knowledge after experiencing

it.
However, if they do not communicate with each other (assuming infants can communicate), where does then such universal knowledge come from other than the fact that induction is innate to humans? Contesters who support Locke’s ideas would probably object to such argument since he reasons that there is no universal assent. I would also like to clarify that the knowledge “touching fire is hot” is not innate to us; otherwise, we shall be able to know it without touching them.
However, the argument presented here is that induction serves as the “capability” to learn knowledge, which can be innate and universal. Locke says, “[t]hose who think that all knowledge is acquired rather than innate also think that the capacity for knowledge is innate” (Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 4). Just like vision, we are born with such capability to see the world although colors and shapes, for example, are extrinsic to our minds. I believe knowledge in science is the ability to understand what happened in the past and infer what is going to happen in the future. For instance, people in the old days do not fully understand chemistry or biology, but they still know how to utilize resources like human waste to generate fertilizer; they attempted many times different mix ratios of various components until it gives the best result, and they keep doing it in the future because empirically certain ratio seems to always give the best result.
The capability of induction has been endowed to us when we are born to able be to generate insight into the world and to acquire knowledge.

Alternatively, induction can be regarded as a piece of unconscious innate knowledge – intuition – as what people might commonly refer as. Apparently, Locke strongly opposes to the idea of “hidden innate knowledge”, which according to him equates to nothing since it is inaccessible to the mind. However, another philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz supports the ideas of unconscious knowledge and maintains that “general principles enter into our thoughts, serving as their inner core and as their mortar. Even if we give no thought to them, they are necessary for thought, as muscles and tendons are for walking” (Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, 23). Leibniz emphasizes the role of general principle in our mind in discovering innate knowledge. Induction can be a form of such general principle that is innate to humans because it can serve the purpose of discovering truth and knowledge, for example, “the fire is hot” or “it might rain tomorrow” even though those findings might be subjective and have no logical grounding. Moreover, Hume’s description regarding the behavior of inductive reasoning as a habit can be understood as a “customary” process of our mind trying to invoke

induction.
In other words, it might not be the case that we are used to induction, but rather our mind is used to it, and we without being acutely aware of the process decide to call it “habit”. To some extent, induction is innate to us and we feel natural to utilize it in our daily lives. Furthermore, Hume might regard the unconsciousness of induction illogical since it is challenging to justify something that is insensible and innate to ourselves.
In conclusion, I have argued that induction is innate to us and can be interpreted either as a capacity of learning or a piece of unconscious innate knowledge and hence, perhaps it would be more precise to argue that induction might not be grounded logically, nevertheless justified in believing due to its innateness. I also conclude that a human being is not born with an empty brain. We have a natural ability which differs from every individual, and it is developed in different stages of life.