David Hume on Induction and Problems of Induction.
Hume’s Induction, Problem of Induction, and the inductive Reasoning based upon Empirical science:
We all believe that we have knowledge of facts extending far beyond those we directly perceive. Though our views of events are dependent and limited to both space and time, and our experiences are limited, we still construct the hypothetical prediction of future. For example, lets say as a normal farmer, you see plants dying because of hot sun so you decided build shed to save them in future. At the same time ‘science’ based upon its “summary of the direct observation” suggest you to water them and make the land extra moist, which is true. As a result of this experience, you would assume that watering more and building the shed while the weather is hot and sunny would save plants in the future. What we have to understand from this is that, we human beings, utilize what may be roughly characterized as inductive or scientific methods of extending knowledge from the observed to the unobserved, using the limited experience and the result of the direct scientific observation, and, we still believe with a confidence (though the confidence is not ‘Justifiable”), that we know something beyond the criteria of our experience which is the problem of induction, which is also the problem of explicating the very concept of inductive evidence.
Hume argued that conditions are based upon experience and they are always subject to change. And linking the fact to the science behind the secret nature of body which is learned from the past experience, changes subsequently without change in their sensible qualities. Foundations of substance are always established after the subject has been developed, not before the development. For example, science, after carrying out certain number of experiments, comes with a conclusion, which is established as the scientific truth. The future conditions/occurrences are imagined as well as believed to be based upon the summary of the science, which is
We all believe that we have knowledge of facts extending far beyond those we directly perceive. Though our views of events are dependent and limited to both space and time, and our experiences are limited, we still construct the hypothetical prediction of future. For example, lets say as a normal farmer, you see plants dying because of hot sun so you decided build shed to save them in future. At the same time ‘science’ based upon its “summary of the direct observation” suggest you to water them and make the land extra moist, which is true. As a result of this experience, you would assume that watering more and building the shed while the weather is hot and sunny would save plants in the future. What we have to understand from this is that, we human beings, utilize what may be roughly characterized as inductive or scientific methods of extending knowledge from the observed to the unobserved, using the limited experience and the result of the direct scientific observation, and, we still believe with a confidence (though the confidence is not ‘Justifiable”), that we know something beyond the criteria of our experience which is the problem of induction, which is also the problem of explicating the very concept of inductive evidence.
Hume argued that conditions are based upon experience and they are always subject to change. And linking the fact to the science behind the secret nature of body which is learned from the past experience, changes subsequently without change in their sensible qualities. Foundations of substance are always established after the subject has been developed, not before the development. For example, science, after carrying out certain number of experiments, comes with a conclusion, which is established as the scientific truth. The future conditions/occurrences are imagined as well as believed to be based upon the summary of the science, which is