Induction
Induction
The problem facing induction has been a great challenge presented by epistemology to various philosophers, among them David Hume. Since the 18th century, he has raised the induction concern to various philosophers with the aim of finding a solution to the dilemma. Karl Popper, Chalmers among others philosophers played an imperative role in identifying a considerable solution to the induction problem. In philosophy, induction is defined as a form of reasoning that is derived from a particular observation of a phenomenon and draws conclusions from the phenomenon. For instance, it is certain that the sun will rise tomorrow in the morning simply because it has been observed that it rises every morning. This is an example of inductive reasoning among individuals. On the contrary, philosophers stipulate that inductive reasoning has its challenges that are based on the aspect of justification. This essay will aim at evaluating the problems of induction and establishing some possible solutions to the dilemma.
The subject of induction can be derived back from the 18th century after philosophers argued about contemporary individual views. David Hume emerged with the induction problem and posed a big challenge on how people approached the world through inductive reasoning. According to his writings, induction created an epistemological hurdle proving unreasonable as a way of acquiring knowledge. Chalmers’s contribution to inductive reasoning facilitated towards finding a resolution to the problem. Induction had created a skeptical danger towards a widely accepted belief in the society. According to Chalmers, it is an unjustifiable approach that individuals use to make assumptions from what has been, previously, observed. Karl Popper suggested that inductive reasoning was framed on past experiences against some universally accepted statements (Earman, 2006, p. 83). For instance, hypotheses and theoretical systems connected to empirical sciences form universal statements that have been accepted by a majority of people.
David Hume came up with a classic formulation of inductive reason, stating that these are assumptions made with regards to incidences or events that are based on previous events. Hume stipulates that these occurrences are prone to occur in the future as they are linked to one another through causation. Hume gives an example of why people believe that the sun will rise every day. According to people’s perceptions, the sun has always come out in the morning and thus a regular act of nature. These assumptions are only true if only the future resembled the past (Sellars, 2000, p. 56). As a result, the inductive reasoning could not be an effective way to gain knowledge and understanding against the occurrence of events. The validity of the future resembling the past does not hold, leading to controversies on the topic. According to the aforementioned problems and instances, it is clear that inductive reasoning has its limits. On the contrary, philosophers have put forward some resolutions against the dilemma in an effort to support and justify the occurrence of events with substantial reasons (Hume, 1995, p. 41).
Induction and Deduction
According to arguments made by David Hume, the distinct meaning between induction and deduction need to be identified. His research suggests that deduction is a way of reaching a conclusion from information on a general perspective. Deductions are made out of general information, leading to a specific resolution. For instance, Jupiter is stated to have a large radius as compared to its moons. As a result, one can deduct that Ganymede, one of the largest Jupiter’s moon, has a smaller radius that Jupiter. Therefore, it is easy to deduct information from a particular general given information. Induction, on the other hand, entails coming up with a general resolution from a specific piece of information or data. The principle of induction is attributed to the assumption of events as they have previously occurred. Individuals have a tendency to infer events based on a particular incident (Tweyman, 1995, p, 34).
According to Hume’s argument, there is no justifiable reason to accept and agree to general conclusions based upon a specific observation. He, further, states that individuals make general conclusions out of a number of unobserved incidences and events. Hume stipulates that there are only two ways through which individuals can justify induction. However, both methods do not provide sufficient justification to the problem. Hume considers experimental and demonstrative reasoning with the aim of justifying the induction problem among people. Demonstrative reasoning is based on accepting the situation of an argument while rejecting the conclusion of the induction (Stahl, 2012, p. 54). Experimental reasoning, on the other hand, can justify the induction dilemma. This is where the conclusion of reasoning cannot be observed as it entails indefinite examples, and many cases of unobserved past events. Justification of induction can be laid on the premises that past conclusions based on induction have turned out to be true. This has imperative significant in determining the reliability of inductive reasoning in philosophy (Hume, 1995, p. 38).
There are various issues, which result from inductive reasoning. For instance, it is essential to note that observed events do not support observations of the conclusions. On the contrary, research study has indicated that some observed instances may not form a conclusive remark. This is because there are still many more unobserved observations that could turn out to be wrong. The argument about inductive reasoning is circular in that it applies the induction approach to make a conclusion of the inductive approach. The approach assumes that all the future events will take place as they had in the past. The approach takes an inductive jump regarding past instances of correct events that have occurred to infer to the present. Such an inductive jump does not justify inductive approach method as a way of gaining knowledge and making certain future conclusions (Hume, 2000, p. 45). Therefore, experimental reasoning fails because it is an inductive argument. The cogency of induction cannot be established by referring to the same reasoning that the question at hand reflects. These approaches offer limits in deciding the cogency of inductive reasoning and inference (Hempel, 2000, p. 62).
Possible Resolutions
On the contrary, individuals tend to find conclusions through justification of a past event because of their rationality in thinking and acting. According to Chalmers, individuals’ thinking can be justified in response to Hume’s problem. The first Chalmers’s response towards Hume’s induction problem was the belief that science is based on induction approach. However, Hume mentioned that justification of induction cannot be framed on experience or logic. Therefore, Hume concluded that justification of inductive reasoning cannot be based on science. According to Hume, beliefs acquired from theories and laws are just psychological habits that human beings accept with time as a result of their repetitive tendency (Keuth, 2005, p. 72).
Chalmers argued that the derivation of non-logic knowledge can be acquired from experience and incidences that have happened before. He rejected the claim that science is inductive in nature as it provides justifiable reasons for the occurrence of particular instances. Karl Popper tried to challenge the idea that science was not based on the induction approach through his research study. There is no considerable justification to scientific theories. Popper suggests that deductive reasoning tries to mitigate possible complexities involved in coming up with philosophical solutions to induction problem. Inductive generalization does not prove sufficient justification as some theoretical elements are included in science. Therefore, deductive reasoning is based on a vivid comparison and testing of data. Popper stipulates that a falsification of conclusions also falsifies the respective theory (Tweyman, 1995, p.18).
Another solution to the induction problem can be irrationalism. This is referred to as the reasoning that reiterates on the non-logic or irrational aspect of truth. David Hume and Karl Popper agreed on the element of irrationalism. However, Popper agreed to the inductive approach of reasoning while Hume rejected this approach. One of the approaches adopted in solving the issue of induction is falsification. According to Popper, falsification is a method where an individual rejects an instance or event through observation or experiment. For instance, the notion that all crows are black can be falsified through identification of a white crow. The falsification method was founded by Popper in an attempt to solve inductive reasoning problem put forward by David Hume. According to Popper, no scientific theory can be justified since all observations are limited. However, there is no limit of possibilities in theory. As a result, theories can be refuted through observations (Sen, 2001, p. 26).
The cogency of a theory is established form its consistent survival from myriad falsification attempts by individuals. Therefore, theories are open to challenges and criticism from various parties in an attempt to find outstanding solution to the problem at hand. Induction can also be overcome using Hume’s assertions to settle numerous arguments by philosophers. He states that nature will, with time, override the humans’ inductive reasoning. This is based on the premises that human beings thinking will change with changes in the natural instinct. The uniformity of thoughts in human being is meant to change with time in the future. According to David Hume, induction has posed a challenge because of its aspect of deriving a conclusion from an observable phenomenon (Hume, 1995, p. 23).
One conclusively express that the inductive method among individuals is superfluous and lacks substantial evidence. The approach lacks a functional base based on the logic of science. The principle of induction has been, widely, used from ancient times though not justifiable enough to be relied. Even though the inductive reasoning has been a success in the determination of events and instances that have occurred in the past, philosophers still argue about its appropriateness, in the modern society (Earman, 2006, p.36). The problem of induction has been analyzed through various philosophical studies with the aim of finding a justifiable answer to the dilemma. The uncertainty of inductive reason forms the basis of myriad questions that engulf the justification of the approach. According to some philosophers, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon might occur, leading to justification with a known phenomenon. As aforementioned, falsification and irrationalism are some of the solutions to the induction problem. It is, therefore, imperative for individuals to falsify the beliefs through hypothesis and empirical testing.
Works Cited
Earman, J. 2006. Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations. California: University of California Press.
Hempel, C. G. 2000. Selected Philosophical Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hume, D. 1995. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: MobileReference.
Hume, D. 2000. The Philosophical Works of David Hume. New York: MobileReference.
Jarvie, I. C., Milford, K., & Miller, D. W. 2006. Karl Popper: Life and time, and values in a world of facts. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Keuth, H. 2005. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sellars, W. 2000. Essays in Philosophy and Its History. New York: Springer.
Sen, P. K. 2001. Logic, induction, and ontology: essays in philosophical analysis. California: Macmillan.
Stahl, A. 2012. Science AND Philosophy. California: BioBitField.
Tweyman, S. 1995. David Hume: Induction and scepticism. London: Taylor & Francis.
