Lecture 2 The Problem of Induction II

University:
Liberty University
Course:
PHYS 202 | General Physics II
Academic year:

2019
Views:

297

Pages:

1
Author:

customer-8617818

Week 5 Lecture 2 The Problem of Induction II • Hume’s ‘sceptical’ solution: the ‘principle’ responsible for inductive reasoning is ‘custom’ or ‘habit’, not ‘reason’ Russell’s Solution • • • • • • • • The principle of induction is self evident - Problem: he doesn’t explain how something is self evident Inductive reasoning relies on principle reasoning Accepts that the principle of induction cannot be established by experience Other principles that cant be proved by experience or demonstrated by basic examples; - Nothing can be and not be - Everything must either be or not be - Whatever is, is Self-evident principles~ truth is evident to us and they themselves are incapable of demonstration Denying Hume’s folk~ proof is neither known through experience or justification Russell doesn’t give any clear answer to the question of what is Hume would say that the analogy Russell draws isn’t legitimate as the negation of the uniformity of nature is perfectly conceivable A Diagnosis of Scepticism • • • • Sceptic presents an argument that we cant have knowledge in a certain area and the person opposing them replies by saying that they have only been able to arrive at that conclusion by imposing a false and unreasonably strong sense of us knowing things in that area Sceptical arguments in general rely on a solid basis of knowledge To turn an inductive argument to a deductively valid argument, we have to add in the premise that nature is uniform No justification for believing that nature is uniform as it would suggest nature is uniform = inductive inference gives us no justification for accepting conclusion An alternative Stroudian basis • • • • • To be justified in believing that p, I have to must possess adequate reasons for believing that p I have to believe that p on the basis of those reasons, and must be justified in taking those reasons to be reasons for believing that p - Suppose a friend has been accused of a crime, might have good reasons to believe he didn’t commit the crime, but suppose those reasons have nothing to do with him committing the crime, I am not justified in believing that he is justified - Reasons for thinking p must be based on p Have to give justified reasons in favour of your belief Have to accept a very internalist reason for justification If the fact that the sun has risen in the past is to justify that it will rise tomorrow, I must be justified in taking the fact that the sun has risen in the past to explain why it will rise tomorrow - Can only be justified by believing that nature is uniform

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock