David Hume Problem Of Induction

THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
There are two assumptions that are made by induction; firstly that there is no unusual circumstance present and secondly the activity will result in the same experience, experienced in the past. However David Hume says there is a problem with induction as the future does not always have to follow the past. This is because induction is making use of causality but since we cannot see, touch or experience causality we cannot say it exists and this is David Hume’s argument. David Hume says that everything is a constant coincident and that our minds create a causal link because we become so accustomed to the two things happening together that we link the effect to the cause and the past to the future. David Hume further
points out that the problem with induction is that there is no connection between the past and the future and thus drawing a general conclusion is not justified or rational.
An example of this is of a pool player. The pool player knows if he hits the white ball in a certain way it will move in a certain direction i.e. if he hits the ball in the centre it will move off in a straight direction, he knows this from his past experience. However, if he hits the ball and it moves to the left it is not illogical. In order for a statement to be considered inductive, it must have one or several premises that lead to a conclusion. For instance, premises used to reach the conclusion “more people drink cow milk than goat milk” might include “grocery stores carry a higher volume of cow milk than goat milk,” or “there are more dairies that have cows than goats.” While these statements may not be able to conclusively prove that more people drink cow milk, they do make the truth of the statement more likely. If an inductive conclusion has a high degree of probability, it is called a strong argument; a conclusion with a low degree of probability is
considered a weak argument.

Even a strong inductive argument can be open to flaws; bias, illogical conclusions, and the simple fact of uncertainty can all lead to an incorrect conclusion despite strong premises.
Bias occurs when a person making or evaluating the probability of an argument gives extra weight to or discounts certain premises based on outside circumstances, such as personal experience. If, for instance, a person has been bitten by a poodle, he or she may believe that all poodles are vicious and be less likely to adopt one. Illogical conclusions can occur when all premises are objectively true, but the conclusion drawn from them does not follow logically; for example, while “all poodles are dogs” may be true, it doesn't logically follow that “all dogs are poodles.”

The biggest vulnerability of inductive logic is its inherent uncertainty. Even with strong premises and a logical conclusion, an inductive argument always has the possibility of being untrue. Horse-racing handicappers experience this issue on a regular basis, as even a heavily favored horse with a perfect record and a poor field of opponents can have a bad race and end up last, regardless of the perceived probability of winning. The vulnerability of inductive arguments is also critically important in courtrooms, since few cases provide only deductive and unmistakable
evidence.

Since the world is full of uncertainty and diverse interpretations, many people run up against inductive reasoning when making decisions. When attempting to determine the validity of inductive logic, it is important to examine each premise for potential bias, illogicality, and specificity. If the premises can be reasonably judged to be unbiased and logical, it is then necessary to see if the conclusion is a logical assumption from the evidence. Finding that the conclusion is logical, it is then important to determine how probable the conclusion is, based on the strength and amount of premises. Even after all this examination, it is important to remember that inductive logic can only lead to a thoroughly educated guess, and never to the definitive, undeniable truth