Problem of induction

01x07 - The Problem Of Induction

• Report rights infringement
• published: 04 Sep 2013
• views: 3296

Welcome to Fast Philosophy. This video is part of our Introduction To Logic series and explains what the problem of induction is. In an earlier video, I distinguished two kinds of argument: deductive and inductive. I said that inductive arguments rely on the principle of induction. But there is a problem with this principle, one which is often attributed to the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The problem is two-fold. Firstly, Hume argues that general or past observations never give us good reason to conclude things about particular or future instances. For example, if I were to make an inductive argument that, because the sun has risen every day hitherto, the sun will rise again tomorrow, there remains many reasons that the sun may not rise again tomorrow. So whereas a deductively sound argument's conclusion is a guaranteed consequence of its premises, this is not the case with inductively sound arguments. This is a very big problem because we assume the principle of induction all the time in everyday life. If we can't be certain that what has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future, then we can't be certain of many things. The second fold of the problem of induction is that it appears to be impossible to argue for the principle of induction. This is because we only have two ways to argue: deductively or inductively. You might make a deductive argument like: P1 The principle of induction has worked in the past P2 Whatever works in the past will work in the future C The principle of induction will work in the future But this argument does not actually justify our use of the principle of induction because the second premise is the principle in so many words. So all that's left is an inductive argument. But clearly an inductive argument cannot justify the principle of induction, because it would assume the principle in virtue of being an inductive argument. The problem of induction opens up a whole area of philosophical literature dedicated to the subject. Some philosophers have said that our being unable to justify its use does not mean that we shouldn't use it; others have pointed to science's seemingly successful use of the principle; and other philosophers have acknowledged that the problem is unsolvable, but that induction is such a useful tool in everyday life that those philosophers are happy to carry on using it.