PHIL1003 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Stipulative Definition, No True Scotsman, Scientific Method
Hume and Induction cont.
• Do we observe causation?
o ) have found that such an object has always been attended with such an
effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar,
will be attended with similar effects – Hume
o So there is constant and regular conjunction – e.g. dropping an object and
it falls to the ground – so we assume there is some hidden nature or causal
law which makes this so
o But we never observe this in experience. It is always possible that the next
object may appear the same as the first, but be governed by a different
hidden nature and so behave contrary to expectation
• But science must be right – mustnt it?
o What if one were to respond as such:
▪ P1: the laws of nature have held in the past
▪ C: they will hold in the future
o We are not using deductive/a priori reasoning here, but this is using
inductive reasoning to support inductive reasoning – there is not proof
they will hold in the future
o Suppose we add a premise which makes the argument valid
▪ P1: the future always resembles the past
▪ P2: the sun rose every day in the past
▪ C: the sun will rise in the future
o The argument is valid, but is it cogent? (Are the premises true?)
o P1 smuggles in induction (How do we know the future always resembles
the past?)
• Inductive thought is a habit rooted in natural instinct
o As humans, we cannot help but reason invalidly
• Alan Musgrave – very well worth reading
o His formulation of the problem of induction
▪ P1: we do and must reason inductively
▪ P2: inductive reasoning is invalid
▪ P3: to reason invalidly is unreasonable
▪ C: therefore we are, and must be, unreasonable
o Can (umes irrationalist conclusion be avoided?
• Proposed solutions to the problem of induction
o Deny P1. We dont, or dont always, reason inductively Popper
o Deny P2. When we characterize inductive reasoning properly, we will see
that it is not invalid
▪ Is inductive reasoning invalid?
▪ Strategies: strengthen the premises or weaken the conclusion
▪ Weve already seen that strengthening the premises by adding a
clause the future resembles the past wont work
▪ The strength of inductive reasoning cannot be known from
experience and cannot be known independently of experience
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
