The Problem of Induction

Week 5 Lecture 1 The Problem of Induction • • • The ‘Uniformity of nature’~ the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions Probability is something we ought to seek The inductive principle is incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience The Problem as Hume States it • • • Observed facts~ currently experiencing, experienced in past or previously experienced - Can we have justified belief or knowledge beyond observed facts? - Have to do so by inference from things that we have observed Arguments which infer conclusions about uninferred facts from premises about inferred facts = Inductive arguments If we are to have justified beliefs about uninferred facts we must have inductive arguments - Do inductive arguments enable us to expand our justified beliefs beyond observed facts, to facts that others and we haven’t observed? What’s meant by an argument? • • • • • • • Collection of propositions when one of those propositions is designated as the conclusion and the others designated as the premises Like a debate Premises supposed to support the conclusion When drawing a conclusion, they infer the conclusion. - When conclusions are inferred from things that haven’t been inferred from premises, which have been inferred, is this justified? Generalisation~ claiming something based on everything else you have seen Projection/prediction~ infer a claim about something based on inference from something similar from before Validity and induction - In the sense that which philosophers use the term valid, inductive arguments are not valid - Argument is logically valid when there is no situation when the premises are true and conclusion is false - Inductive arguments are not valid in this sense~ possible situations when the premise is true but conclusion is false. They do not guarantee the truth of their conclusions - Not bad arguments and can give us support for conclusions o Sun always risen in past, so will rise tomorrow~ inductive argument, possibility that although it has risen every day it may not rise tomorrow. Seems intuitively that the fact it has risen every day in the past that it will tomorrow. o Premise gives us some reason to believe the conclusion Week 5 Lecture 1 Why does Hume think that Inductive arguments do not give us reason to accept their conclusions? • • • • • • • • In order to turn something into a deductive argument, a premise must be added - The future will resemble the past Past regularities will continue in the future Deductive argument~ the premise will guarantee the conclusion Principle of the uniformity of nature~ Hume argues in a way which many philosophers have found absolutely persuasive that we can have no reason to believe that the future will resemble the past (or that nature is uniform in this sense) WHY? (Will the unobserved resemble the observed) - Hume’s fork~ all propositions can be divided into two classes; relations of ideas and matters of facts - Relations of ideas~ 2 + 2 = 4, they are a priori justification for believing them does not depend on experience, they are analytic and intuitively certain - Matters of fact~ known by experience, posteriori and synthetic. The negation of a matter of fact is not a contradiction - In Hume’s terms if we are to know that the future will resemble the past, it must be a relation of ideas or a matter of fact - The proposition that the future will resemble the past is not a relation of ideas as the negation of that problem is not a contradiction - Perfectly intelligible that the course of nature may change - If something is conceivable, it cannot entail a feature of contradiction - If something is a matter of fact it must be something that experience is sure of - In the past we have found things that resemble the past~ inferred that the future will resemble the past In order for what we have observed to justify us in forming beliefs about things we haven’t observed, we have to assume that nature is uniform or that the unobserved will resemble the observed - Can do that by seeing how things up to now resemble things that we haven’t Inductive arguments give us no reason to accept their conclusions Thinks human beings constantly drawn conclusions on things that they haven’t observed on the basis of things they have observed - We have a powerful tendency towards making inductive inferences despite the fact that they are unjustified Justification and Explanation • • • • • Natural instinct (custom) causes us to expect things we haven’t observed to resemble things we have observed Part of nature to form expectations in that way - Naturalist, sees no significant separation between human beings and animals - Rejects the idea that man is made in God’s image and that his reason separates him from other animals in nature Custom is the guide of human life. It renders experience useful to us and males us expect similar events in the future Reasoning alone gives no justification for beliefs The way that you form beliefs isn’t a product of reason but a product of custom and habit