• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Problem of justifying induction and Humes solution

Extracts from this document...


In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume states that all knowledge of the external world comes from perception and that reason depends on experience. Through observations, induction has worked in the past, but does not indicate that it will work in the future. For this reason, it is difficult for one to justify induction without using inductive reasoning. It seems the only way to justify the common inductive reasoning and similar inductive reasoning is through induction; hence, the justification is circular. This is often called the problem of induction. Hume provides a solution to this problem which at the end still seems to be problematic. I will begin by clarified the two forms of reasoning-inductive and deductive. I will then explicate Hume's claim on how all reasoning is based on experience. This will lead as to the problem of justifying induction. I will then present Hume's solution to the problem. It is through custom and habit that grounds the bases of all reasoning. I will then contend Hume's conclusion in justifying induction. If induction cannot be justify with reason, then induction lacks evidentiary value. Next, I will then attempt to solve the problem, using Garrett's claim, by understanding Hume's argument to be descriptive rather than normative. ...read more.


The question that may arise is, "how does one know the uniformity of nature is going to stay that way?" This indeed will lead us to the problem of induction. Hume does not state that induction is not justifiable but specifically it cannot be justified by reasoning. There are many inductive inferences that are considered to be good ones, including numerous scientific inferences. If one cannot justify something that it reflects the knowledge of our nature to use inductive reasoning. The problem is that it becomes a threat to human knowledge. One may justify induction with the future is similar to the past in the relevant senses or even the "it always has been the case" rule. One is using the same type of inductive reasoning to justify one type of inductive reason. This is not a strong argument and leads to an infinite regress. It shows that the belief of one is something that one cannot trust. The knowledge of one's beliefs become shakier than ever. One cannot predict from mere observe experience because the consistency is based on that experience. Future experience can differ from the past. The generalization is making a prior claim that the natural world is uniform instability to one's experience. ...read more.


The problem of description is not to show that our inferential practices are reliable, but simply be able to describe them as they stand (Lipton, 1998, p. 418). It is true that this will raise no general problem of infinite regress since justification is not the problem in description. "In practice, however, we usually have the opposite problem: we can not come up with even one description that would yield the patterns we observe (Lipton, 1998, p. 420)." Habit or Custom is the formation of Hume's idea of induction. It can help one to predict what one will do on the basis on what one has done in the past, but it will not tell what one is going to do in the future. Therefore, Hume's problem of induction is not close to being resolved. In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume states that experience is where all knowledge of the external world comes. Reason depends on experience. Hume suggested that the uniformity of nature is what governs the principle of all our inductive inferences. If one can show the nature is indeed uniform, one can justified that the unobserved world is much like what one has already observed (Lipton, 1998, p. 416). The only way to do that is to use an inductive argument which leaves to an infinite regress. The problem of induction still exists, though many philosophers have attempted to resolve it. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Philosophy and Theology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Philosophy and Theology essays

  1. In this paper, I am going to compare and contrast Hume's empiricism to Descartes' ...

    If the idea of God does not come from us, it must come from God, therefore God necessarily exists. God exists not because we conceive him Descartes would agree, but because our reasons conceive God. Descartes argues that because he clearly and distinctively conceives the idea of a supreme being, he must surely exist.

  2. Do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?

    For only a probability of '1' denotes absolute certainty and this is never the case in the world. There are always exceptions where a chair has not supported our weight, and although this makes you initially cautious you eventually dismiss the idea as an exception to the rule and continue to assume as before.

  1. Kant's Philosophy

    Humans are between the two worlds. We are both sensible and intellectual, as was pointed out in the discussion of the first Critique. We are neither wholly determined to act by natural impulse, nor are we free of non-rational impulse. Hence we need rules of conduct.

  2. Explain Hume's theory of impressions and ideas. What, if anything is wrong with it?

    If later, I tried to explain to a friend how painful it was when I trapped my finger in the door I can recall the incident in the form of an idea. However the difference between the impression and the 'copied' idea is that when I recall the experience I

  1. The Problem Of Evil.

    If God were to make an indestructible object, his omnificence would be limited by his inability to break that indestructible object. This ancient problem is troublesome to theists' claims that the God of classical theism is omnificent. In response to all these arguments about the problem of evil, Thomas Aquinas

  2. Can We Justify Our Deductive Processes? I will begin by exploring the basic ...

    This means that we can use deductive arguments in philosophy to convince people of what we believe, because, as long as they agree with the starting premises, they cannot avoid agreeing with the conclusion. Given that we use deductive reasoning so much, the philosophical issue arises of how we can

  1. The Problem of Free WIll

    They were so glad that I was fine. I asked them how my friends were doing, and unfortunately, my friend that was driving the car did not make it alive. Now, considering the aforementioned series of events, was her death my fault?

  2. Compare St Augstine and Rousseau's view of justifying authority and power.

    This distinction contributes to fundamental disparities in their theories, which implies that they are making different arguments. Hence, the purpose of this essay is to critically compare the metaphysical and political theories of St Augustine and Rousseau by disserting theoretic elements in their quotes, then to appraise the applicability of

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work