The Differences Between Induction And Deduction

1452 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: About on Hume

In this we essay will briefly look at the differences between induction and deduction. We will then examine Hume’s problem of induction and popular approaches to solving the problem. Finally we will consider whether Hume’s problem warrants our concern, does scientific advancement require induction to proceed or does it proceed deductively?

A deductive argument is ‘truth tropic’-it leads us to true conclusions. Deductive arguments are ones where the premises entail the conclusion; as a result, it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus deduction is truth preserving, if the premises are true, you can guarantee that the conclusion is also true. In this essay, all other forms of inferences that are non-deductive will be called inductive inferences. Consider the following argument: “all observed Emus are flightless, therefore, all Emus are Flightless.” Clearly this argument is not deductive since the truth of the premise does not necessarily entail the truth of the conclusion. In fact, it is entirely possible, though non likely, that the premise is true and the conclusion be proven false due to the existence of an unobserved Emu which is not flightless. However, it seems as thought this type of reasoning is plausible and even reliable if we ensure that the sample of observed Emus is sufficiently large and representative. Meaning that the Emus have been observed in a variety of locations over a long period of time. Thus induction is matter of “weighing evidence and judging probability not of proof”. It is clear that induction plays a crucial role in the advancement of scientific theories, however is it possible to justify inductive inferences and if so, how should we go about doing thi...

... middle of paper ...

...fend his theory against refutation. Should his theory been refuted? Furthermore, how can we identify a true falsifier as opposed to falsifiable falsifier? Since falsifiable falsifier can loom over theories for as long as decades, perhaps pseudoscientific theories such as Marxism and Freudianism are only temporarily unable to explain their falsifiers? The problem of the falsifiable falsifier poses some serious questions that could undermine Falsificationism.

To conclude, in this essay we briefly looked at the differences between induction and deduction. Then we examined Hume’s problem of induction along with two attempts at solving the problem of induction. Neither seemed to provide a clear solution. Then we questioned whether it was possible to live with Hume’s problem of induction by examining the theory of falsificationism, and the problems that lie in the theory.

Show More
Related

  • Scientific Knowledge: Hypothetico-Deductivists

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.

    Read More

  • Critique of Hume's Analysis of Causality

    3300 Words  | 7 Pages

    The figure of David Hume looms large in the philosophical tradition of English-speaking countries; and his two famous analyses, of human apprehension and of causality, were the...

    Read More

  • The Raven's Paradox

    1354 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ion. Hempel’s solution provides to give a reason as to how induction can lead to confirmation and how the logical gap can be filled through the use of logically equivalent statements. However, his view and answer to the paradox prove to be a stretch and lead to the issue of common sense being broken and illogical observations being made to confirm the hypothesis. Good successfully brings attention to this rather blatant error on the part of Hempel to eventually lead to the Raven paradox being invalid. Not only is Good effective in highlighting errors within Hempel’s solution, but Popper, Scheffler, and Goodman are all equally successful in negating individual parts of Hempel’s argument as well. In the end, it is the addition of all these counterarguments that prove to exhibit that Hempel is unsuccessful in trying to come up with a valid answer to the raven paradox.

    Read More

  • Grue Paradox Analysis

    932 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even with the problem of induction, we are still justified to conclude that all emeralds are green. Either out of common sense, or due to certain constraints the “grue” hypothesis has, we find the induction that concludes that all emeralds are green more compelling.

    Read More

  • Argument of the Hume's Response to the Missing Shade of Blue

    1260 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I will argue that Hume’s response to the “missing shade of blue” example is satisfactory. Firstly, I shall explain Hume’s account of the relationship between impressions and ideas and the copy principle. I shall then examine the “missing shade of blue” and its relation to this account. I shall then explore Hume’s response to his own counter-example and evaluate his position by considering possible objections and responses to his view. I shall then show why Hume’s response to the “missing shade of blue” example is satisfactory.

    Read More

  • Humes' and Descartes' Position on the Existence of the External World

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Final Paper In the following paper I will argue upon whether the Humes’ or Descartes’ philosophical position on the existence of the external world is stronger than the other. I will first present each philosopher’s position, and then I will argue that Hume has a stronger position on the existence of the external world for the reasons in this paper. Descartes argues that we can know the external world because of God, and God is not a deceiver. Descartes’ core foundation for understanding what is important comes from three points: our thoughts about the world and the things in it could be deceptive, our power of reasoning has found ideas that are indubitable, and certainty comes by way of reasoning.

    Read More

  • Kant's Second Analogy

    4263 Words  | 9 Pages

    In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of Kants argument in the Second Analogy, we have not been able to find an argument that we can show valid. The modest title of a recent article, Another Volley at Kants Reply to Hume, (1) suggests that the problem of finding a valid argument in the Second Analogy, and an adequate response to Hume, is still with us.

    Read More

  • Reason: David Hume, Kant And Reason

    1433 Words  | 3 Pages

    Together, David Hume and Emanuel Kant, have a very crucial influence to modern philosophy. Hume challenges conventional philosophical views with his skepticism as well as his new take on what is metaphysics. His views and ideas where influential to many, including Kant, however they lead to his philosophical reasoning and empiricism to be viewed lead to negatively and atheistically. Kant, whose philosophy was so strongly influenced by Hume that in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics wrote “I openly confess that my remembering of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave me new investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction” (Kant, Preference) defends and overcomes Hume by advancing philosophy in a revolutionary way. Kant’s philosophy has its foundation on Hume’s work, specifically his skeptical view on causality.

    Read More

  • Hume's Ideas on Cause and Effect

    684 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...

    Read More

  • Hume Vs Kant

    1749 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant found many problems within Hume’s account. Through his endeavors to prove that metaphysics is possible, and his analyzing of causality, Kant solved the problems he saw within Hume’s account. Specifically, in the Prolegomena, Kant stated that Hume “justly maintains that we cannot comprehend by reason the possibility of causality.”(57) Kant also attacked Hume’s ideas by describing Hume’s treatment of the concept of causality to be “a bastard of the imagination, impregnated by experience.”(5) Kant succeeded in re- establishing the objectivity of causality, a task that Hume had rejected as impossible.

    Read More

  • The Egocentric Predicament

    482 Words  | 1 Pages

    In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.

    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

  • Of Necessity and Liberty

    1690 Words  | 4 Pages

    As a result of his previous focus on necessity in section VII, Hume’s tactic in this section is to repeat his thoughts on the nature of necessity. He begins by examining “what we are pleased to call physical necessity,” (Hume 526) and try to present an argument of how human actions are necessary (i.e. causally determined). According to Hume, there are laws in nature that are “actuated by necessary forces and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause that no other effect, in such a particular circumstances, could possibly have resulted from it” (Hume 523). Hume a...

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason

    2433 Words  | 5 Pages

    Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Critique of Pure Reason is held universally as a watershed regarding epistemology and metaphysics. There have been anticipations regarding the notion of the analytic especially in Hume. The specific terms analytic and synthetic were first introduced by Kant at the beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason book. The mistake that metaphysicians made was viewing mathematical judgments as being “analytic”. Kant came up with a description for analytic judgments as one that is merely elucidatory, that is, what is implicit is transformed into explicit. Kant’s examples utilize the judgments of subjects or rather predicates, for instance the square has four sides. The predicates content is always already accounted for in

    Read More

  • Metaphysics as Addressed by Kant and Hume

    1383 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume's writing posed an interesting starting off point for Kant's theories. As said before, Kant attributes Hume's writing with waking him from his "dogmatic slumber." He recognizes both Hume's intelligence and the validity of his statements. However, he does n...

    Read More

More about The Differences Between Induction And Deduction

Open Document