The Theory Of Induction And Induction

1105 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hume's arguments against induction

In answering the above question I would firstly clarify it 's meaning or my interpretation of it. My argument is not based on the question of whether induction itself is rational, as in is it a logical process. The answer to that question is no, however can it be rationally justified? in other words can a rational argument be made to justify its use in relation to acquiring knowledge I will argue that yes it can. Furthermore I will argue that this is indeed what Hume meant when he made the distinction between applying induction as an agent and logically critiquing induction from the perspective of the philosopher. I will begin by explaining induction and deduction, how both methods of inference are applied by humankind and within nature and what separates them. From there I will underline the issues when attempting to justify induction and present my argument as to why it can be rationally justified. In doing so I will show how Hume 's critical assessment of induction, whilst presenting its shortcomings, also acknowledges its unavoidable function.

Induction is an everyday part of our life’s I make decisions based on this method of inference in order to function within society. It is the process of predicting the outcome of future events based on the outcome of similar events that have occurred in the past. Our calender, the seasons and the clocks we use to manage our time are based on the rotation of the earth in relation to its orbit around the sun. Every day I awake with the 'knowledge ' that the sun will rise and indicate the beginning of my day. I make this assertion due to the sun having risen every day since my birth and therefore through induction I infer it will rise tomorrow, the day after and so on. I work at a tra...

... middle of paper ...

.... In this case rational meaning not based in logic due to the reality that as suggested above there are numerous reasons the bearded man may require a train ticket. As I am not privy to the complete picture regarding his motivations I do not know the inner workings of his purpose. Hume would agree with this assessment regarding the flaws of my inductive reasoning. His example of eating bread is no different, based on experience we may infer that what looks and feels like bread will provide us with nourishment as this is what it has done in the past. However we can never truly know this to be a fact until after it has been consumed and no adverse effects experienced. Indeed who is to say that an individuals tolerance of some ingredient within the bread has weakened and they no longer are able to digest the bread correctly. They would not know this until after the fact.

Show More
Related

  • Analogical Teleological Argument

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, David Hume, succeeds in objecting this argument by claiming that the experience is a necessary factor for understanding the creation of the universe. Lastly, I argued that Paley’s argument was not sufficient for proving God’s existence with the argument by design because we cannot assume the world will comply and work the way we wish

    Read More

  • Kathryn Schulz's Evidence

    689 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Limited Information is really how we err. But it is also how we think.” The act of actively combating our inductive bias in Kathryn Schulz’s Evidence

    Read More

  • Rene Descartes Rationalism Analysis

    159 Words  | 1 Pages

    Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Philo, Demea And Cleanthes

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...onversation among three individuals who have different beliefs. The aspect of the argument of design is an important one because it sheds light on Hume’s belief once Philo and Demea prove that the argument is weak. Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.

    Read More

  • Hume's Views on Kant's Concept of God

    522 Words  | 2 Pages

    Contrary to many critiques Hume does believe that there is a God, however he does not believe that God is all greatness like society commonly assumes and excepts. Hume argues that because one sees an effect that doesn't mean that we can automatically know or assume its cause. This argument can be used to explain the creation of the world. We know that the universe is here but we don't know if God make it or if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the world. Perhaps the most obvious example of Hume's argument is.

    Read More

  • Empiricism Versus Rationalism: Descartes and Hume

    541 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rationalism and empiricism have always been on opposite sides of the philosophic spectrum, Rene Descartes and David Hume are the best representative of each school of thought. Descartes’ rationalism posits that deduction, reason and thus innate ideas are the only way to get to true knowledge. Empiricism on the other hand, posits that by induction, and sense perception, we may find that there are in fact no innate ideas, but that truths must be carefully observed to be true.

    Read More

  • Jane Elliot Racism Analysis

    750 Words  | 2 Pages

    something that was taught over hundreds of years, it is deeply embedded and it actually does

    Read More

  • The Qualitions Of David Hume: A Definition Of Caustion

    724 Words  | 2 Pages

    Every day we come across causal notions. Causality is the relationship between something and another and when the first event is a cause, it doesn’t just simply happen before the effect, it produces it. For instance, releasing the pen caused the pen to fall. As an empiricist, David Hume claims that all knowledge is based on experience, either on perception or thought. He defines causality in two ways in which his commitment to empiricism had got him to these conclusions. The first definition of cause is the object’s relation to another object in contiguity; the second is the relation between the object and our minds. First he says that all perceptions are divided into two categories; they are either impressions or ideas. Impressions are derived

    Read More

  • Reason: David Hume, Kant And Reason

    1433 Words  | 3 Pages

    David Hume is was a strong advocator and practitioner of a scientific and empirical way of thinking which is reflected in his philosophy. His skeptical philosophy was a 180 degree shift from the popular rational philosophy of the time period. Hume attempted to understand “human nature” through our psychological behaviors and patterns which, when analyzing Hume’s work, one can clearly see its relation to modern day psychology. Hume was a believer in that human behavior was influenced not by reason but by desire. He believed that “Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit—these passions, mixed in various proportions and distributed throughout society, are now (and from the beginning of the world always have been) the source of all the actions and projects that have ever...

    Read More

  • Pragmatic Justification

    1319 Words  | 3 Pages

    Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, that the belief in inductive reasoning is only rational on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by an appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or assesses propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is thus, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). Yet even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there are no rational justifications for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still maintain that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in the principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly sound reasons for behaving as if the principle of induction holds true, regardless of whether or not the principle itself is rationally justifiable (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used across many of the belief systems that we as human beings hold, even stretching to the playing field of religion. In this paper I will outline not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is equally as justifiable to believe in an infinite God, regardless of whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for such conclusions.

    Read More

  • Hume Vs Kant

    1749 Words  | 4 Pages

    In order to go beyond the objects of human reason, Hume proposed that reasoning was based upon cause and effect. Causal relations help us to know things beyond our immediate vicinity. All of our knowledge is based on experience. Therefore, we need experience to come to causal relationships of the world and experience constant conjunction. Hume stated that he “shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition which admits no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not in any instance, attained by reasonings ‘a priori’, but arises entirely from experience.” (42)

    Read More

  • Internalism vs Externalism

    1651 Words  | 4 Pages

    Knowledge can be achieved either through the justification of a true belief or for the substantive externalist, through a “natural or law like connection between the truth of what is believed and the person’s belief” (P.135). Suppose a man named George was implanted with a chip at birth, which causes him to utter the time in a rare Russian dialect. His girlfriend Irina, who happens to speak the same Russian dialect, realizes that every time she taps his shoulder, he tells her the time and he is always right. She knows that he is right because she checks her watch. Because she thinks this is cute, she never tells him what it is that he is saying. One day, Irina’s watch breaks but instead of getting it fixed, she just taps George on the shoulder whenever she needs to ask for the time.

    Read More

  • Rene Descartes is a Rationalist

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Believing that reason is the main source of knowledge is another clear distinction of rationalism. Rationalists believe that the 5 senses only give you opinions, not reasons. For example, in Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one shape to begin with- but once the candle is lit, it begins to melt, lose its fragrance, and take on a completely different shape than it had started with. This argument proves that our senses can be deceiving and that they should not be trusted.

    Read More

  • Difference Between Natural Selection And Native American History

    1440 Words  | 3 Pages

    The principles of natural selection are suitable a metaphor for how knowledge within a discipline is developed. Natural selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully proposed by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. It is important to keep in mind that natural selection is different from evolution as evolution is the result of natural selection. The use of this metaphor signifies that only knowledge that is favored survives to be taught to the next generation and that only the best knowledge survives. In general, knowledge can be defined as justified true belief (Ichikawa). The

    Read More

  • How Children Learn Language

    761 Words  | 2 Pages

    We apply what we learn every day that goes by to help us in our life. From Applying the knowledge and application of the long-term memories from making the same mistake we did in the past and not to make them again. The classical conditioning to help as force people to do something to see the reaction to do things for something they life. Positive Reinforcement to reward yourself with for to achieve a goal. A child learns a language before he or she is even born into this word. We learn things new every day to help us in this world.

    Read More

More about The Theory Of Induction And Induction

Open Document