Induction
Induction is reasoning from a small set of examples to a general conclusion about all similar examples. For instance, we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow based on countless days of experience. Of particular importance to us is drawing conclusions about the future on the basis of past or present experience. Hume says that all such reasoning works only if things go on as they have before. Only if past experience is a reliable guide to future experience. Without this assumption, the reasoning is unjustified. So, how do we know the future will be like the past. Deduction won't work because it is not a contradiction to assume that the future will change. Hume says that just because the future has resembled the past in the past, it doesn't follow that it will resemble the past from now on. If one assumes this, they are arguing in a circle. Induction may be justified by saying that the past or present cause the future. If we know the cause, which is the past or present, then we know the effect, which is the future. However, Hume says that you only have the idea of causation because, in the past, you have seen things go together all the time. Therefore, the concept of causation is based on past experience. To as
Sir Karl Popper argued that science does not actually rely on induction and he developed the idea of falsification instead. He says that when assessing a theory one should pay more attention to the data that is in disagreement with the theory than with the data that is in agreement. There are numerous things that we humans believe but have never directly observed. In the past, every time a book had been dropped, it fell to the floor. Something is observed over and over again therefore we know it will always occur this way. We know that science depends on induction, therefore if induction is irrational, so is all of science. In order to prove something is falsifiable it must be possible to conduct an experiment or observation that would show it false. sume that causation will continue as it has is to assume the future will be like the past. To Hume, the fact that we know if we drop a book it will fall to the floor is based on past experiences. For instance, we believe that gravity will keep us grounded, however this is something we cannot guarantee. However, scientists regard this law as infallible. Hume concludes that no matter how reliably a law seems to have held in the past, there is no logical reason why it must do so in the future at all. Therefore we tend to believe that this pattern will be repeated. However, Hume believes that this is still circular reasoning because laws have been exception less up until now so how do we know that will continue.
Common topics in this essay:
According Hume,
Karl Popper,
,
past experience,
future past,
induction irrational,
depends induction induction,
induction induction irrational,
conclusion correct,
assume future,
exception laws,
induction induction,
science science,
past seen,
depends induction,
|
Acceptance Essays
