1. In a classical look the problem of induction was formulated by David Hume who noticed that such conclusions are based on the assumption that the future is similar to the past, or on the assumption that events of one type are necessarily bound (by means of a causal condition) to the events of the other type. (1) For example, if someone is asked why we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would answer that in the Earth turns round within each 24 hours (approximately), and that in the nature, there is a uniformity which guarantees that such events always occur in the same way. But is the nature is monotonous in this sense? We could answer that in the past the nature always showed monotony in this regard, and, therefore, it remains monotonous in the future. (Hume, 1924). However, this conclusion is justified only at an assumption that the future has to be similar to the past. How we can prove such assumption? We can tell that in the past and the future was similar to the past and future that are followed by them, and they will be similar to the past, present and future of the upcoming days. The reasoning is obviously moving around: it is successful only at an implicit assumption of that else it is necessary to prove, namely that the future will be similar to the past.
2. Mill critically evaluates the possibilities of the complete induction, fairly believing that it cannot be put in the science basis. Therefore, it is necessary to lean on a so-called imperfect induction that represents an original conclusion from the particular to the general (universal). (Mill, 1963). In the other words, such induction gives rise to the method of experimenting, discoveries of the new knowledge, driving from the known to the unknown.
Mill suggests that logics of the scientific research is the result of inductive procedures. However, it does not mean ignoring of deductive procedures. Mill explicitly considers and highly appreciates a syllogistics enough, emphasizing the importance of a faithful representation of the knowledge received by the inductive path. However, as a whole, the syllogistic conclusion cannot be the main thing in science and therefore has only technical value for the scientist.
The example of traditional syllogistic logical statement is: All men are mortal, Duke Wellington is a man, Duke Wellington is mortal.
Mill argues this system and suggests the new look at inductive method:
“The mortality of John, Thomas, and others is, after all, the whole evidence we have for the mortality of the Duke of Wellington. Not one iota is added to the proof by interpolating a general proposition.” (Mill, 1963). This was how Mill’s logics works, as in his opinion, we argue not from the general to particular, but from particular to particular.
3. In the article “An Encounter with David Hume” Salmon presents the discussion, particularly focusing on the one character who is trying to test hypotheses concerning the inductive method adopted by science.
This article presents the discussion between the professor and a student about nature and scientific method. The student observes regularity in nature and that it is predictive. Then the professor points out that David Hume also believed that nature is a predictable category. (Salmon, 1974). However, Salmon suggests that what was predictable in the past, would not necessary be predictable in the future. The scientific method itself should be predictable, and step by step, it should follow some concrete repeatable procedure.
According to Salmon, the events cannot always be explained as “because it always was before”. The concept of “secret power” of connecting events by Hume cannot be taken for granted under the modern circumstances, as since then the science has work out new explanations to events and particularly to how the world works. The “student” in this essay in the discussion with her professor in Physics discusses that the law should be tested under the variety of conditions. In the Salmon’s opinion, the adequate science should not be based on the statement that we know nothing of powers to connect events. Every event in the science is reasoned, and there should be no exceptions of it. The true scientific method is aimed to reveal the generalization. It works very well, when particular events are generalized on the basis of its repetition and regularity.
The successful testing leads to some concrete conclusions. Salmon’s method works very well on the basis of hypothesizing that the law is true at the initial stage of experiment. In general, Salmon suggests that the scientific method successfully works through predicting future results on the basis of the past events.
References
Mill, J. S. (1963). Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, J. M. Robson (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Salmon, W.C. (1974). An Encounter with David Hume. <http://www.uky.edu/~mwa229/Salmon.pdf>.
The Philosophical Works of David Hume. (1924). Volume IV. Edinburgh: Printed for Adam Black and William Tait; and Charles Tait, 63, Fleet Street, London. MDCCCXXVI.
