Why Is Hume's Problem Of Induction Unjustified?
Revolutionary 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote, “I never knew anyone, that examined and deliberated about nonsense who did not believe it before the end of his enquiries.” While considering absurdist ideas, human nature compels us to believe them, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Many extremely skeptical philosophical theories are widely known, from the Brain In A Vat thought experiment or The Matrix movies. As a result of Hume’s Problem Of Induction, skeptical scenarios seem nearly impossible to disprove. And although René Descartes showed that a thinking entity exists somewhere that controls his thoughts, he wasn’t able to debunk skeptical scenarios without using unfounded teleological arguments. Many philosophers
…show more content…
The first problem is simple: the present is not always exactly like the past, and induction assumes that it is. For example, just because I didn’t roll a 6 on a die the first ten times I tried doesn’t mean I won’t roll a 6 the eleventh time. The second issue is that induction can only be proven using induction, which creates circular reasoning. For example, if Dale asked you, “How do you know the floor of this 100 story tall skyscraper won’t collapse right now?” you could reasonably respond, “Because I’ve worked here for 46 years, and it never has.” Dale, a graduate of a top-tier New England college and donner of a blue-velvet lined tweed jacket, responds that, “Well, how do you know that inductive reasoning to be true?” You’re now in a pickle; you consider saying, “Well typically if something is so sure in the past, inductive reasoning works,” but you know that’s a pointless argument. In despair, you resort to pointing out that you have more Ivy League degrees and are currently wearing more embroidered accessories from polo clubs. Proving induction requires induction, which is a circular argument. The last issue is that correlation does not always mean causation, and therefore, inductive claims could be unjustified and misguided. Any one of these three claims can be used to demonstrate how an inductive argument alone does not constitute valid
The first problem is simple: the present is not always exactly like the past, and induction assumes that it is. For example, just because I didn’t roll a 6 on a die the first ten times I tried doesn’t mean I won’t roll a 6 the eleventh time. The second issue is that induction can only be proven using induction, which creates circular reasoning. For example, if Dale asked you, “How do you know the floor of this 100 story tall skyscraper won’t collapse right now?” you could reasonably respond, “Because I’ve worked here for 46 years, and it never has.” Dale, a graduate of a top-tier New England college and donner of a blue-velvet lined tweed jacket, responds that, “Well, how do you know that inductive reasoning to be true?” You’re now in a pickle; you consider saying, “Well typically if something is so sure in the past, inductive reasoning works,” but you know that’s a pointless argument. In despair, you resort to pointing out that you have more Ivy League degrees and are currently wearing more embroidered accessories from polo clubs. Proving induction requires induction, which is a circular argument. The last issue is that correlation does not always mean causation, and therefore, inductive claims could be unjustified and misguided. Any one of these three claims can be used to demonstrate how an inductive argument alone does not constitute valid