Chapter 2 mainly discusses Hume’s problem of induction. David Hume proposed the dilemma of whether or not induction was real. Induction is what we use to come to a probable conclusion but also where the actual truth of the conclusion cannot be proven due to the simple fact that it is improbable that you will be able to sample or test every single option, however the conclusion becomes strongly accepted (e.g. I have a bag of scarfs, the first 10 scarfs I pulled out were all red, therefore I have a bag of red scarfs. I do not REALLY know if all the scarfs in the bag are red, but due to the small amount of data I collected and the pattern holding stable thus far, I can some to the probable conclusion that all the scarfs in the bag are red and accept that as the right conclusion.) In deductive reasoning, the premises leads to a logically proven truth about the conclusion (e.g. Every A is B, this C is A. Therefore the logical conclusion is C is B. (livescience.com) . So, if inductive reasoning can never truly led us to a PROVEN conclusion, then is it really a valid way to reach a conclusion? Or should we put less value or weight on an inductive conclusion than a deductive conclusion? Epistemology teaches us truth is a necessity for knowledge. With an inductive conclusion, there is no absolute proven truth, but just strong inference. So the argument stands, induction can never lead to truth thus never leading to proven knowledge concluding induction is a form of opinion, not fact. So, does it have any place in science? If so, to what degree? And how much weight should be put on an inductive conclusion, meaning how firmly do we believe in the conclusion if it can never be proven?
If we don't allow ourselves to rely on probable but not "certain" inductive arguments, we'll have to be skeptics. David Hume was ok with that, but on the other hand he also lived day-to-day with the same commonsense acceptance of unproved inductively-based beliefs that most of us accept. More to the point, though: if we reject induction we'll also have to repudiate science. That would truly be throwing the baby out with the bath!
ReplyDelete