Problem of induction
The Problem of induction is a philosophical problem that questions the rationality of predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. These inferences from the observed to the unobserved are known as “inductive inferences”. David Hume, who first formulated the problem in 1739, argued that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences, while he acknowledged that everyone does and must make such inferences.
The traditional inductivist view is that all claimed empirical laws, either in everyday life or through the scientific method, can be justified through some form of reasoning. The problem is that many philosophers tried to find such a justification but their proposals were not accepted by others. Identifying the inductivist view as the scientific view, C. D. Broad once said that induction is “the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy”. In contrast, Karl Popper’s critical rationalism claimed that inductive justifications are never used in science and proposed instead that science is based on the procedure of conjecturing hypotheses, deductively calculating consequences, and then empirically attempting to falsify them.
The problem of induction, famously articulated by David Hume, questions the validity of inductive reasoning – drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Essentially, it asks why we should assume that future events will resemble past experiences, even if those past experiences have been consistent. This problem highlights the lack of logical justification for inductive inferences, making them ultimately rely on habit or custom rather than reason.
- Inductive Reasoning: This is the process of forming general rules or predictions based on specific observations. For example, observing that the sun has risen every day and concluding that it will rise tomorrow is an inductive inference.
- The Problem: Hume pointed out that there’s no logical or rational basis to guarantee that future events will mirror past ones. Just because something has always happened in the past doesn’t mean it must happen that way in the future.
- Circular Reasoning: Any attempt to justify induction using past experience simply leads to circular reasoning. We’d be using induction (past experience) to justify induction (future predictions).
- No Rational Guarantee: Hume argued that we cannot know that induction is reliable. We can believe it, and we often do, but we can’t prove it through logic or reason.
- Implications: The problem of induction has significant implications for science, philosophy, and our everyday lives, as many of our beliefs and practices rely on inductive reasoning.
In simpler terms: The problem of induction is that we have no logical basis to assume that the future will behave like the past, even though we do it all the time.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://iep.utm.edu/problem-of-induction/
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/lflng/can_someone_explain_to_me_david_humes_problem_of/
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-induction
[6] https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/history-of-the-problems-of-induction-philosophy-essay.php