Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The problem of induction home essay
The problem of induction home essay
The problem of induction home essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The problem of induction home essay
Max Black and Humean Skepticism
In this essay I will argue that the Humean problem of induction is only truly problematic when a strange, impossible definition is given to the term “reasonable”. I will begin by explaining what it is I understand Hume’s induction problem to be, and to try to flesh out the issues relevant to my case. I will then examine Max Black’s proposed solution to the problem, and show in what ways this solution is useful and why it is ultimately unconvincing. In this latter context I will invoke the work of Wesley Salmon, and then try to solve the problem that Salmon poses.
Hume’s problem of induction is that inductive reasoning is not, in fact, reasonable. That is, we are not justified in reasoning inductively. This is because he believes that, in order to justify induction, we must use some form of the Uniformity Principle. This Uniformity Principle (henceforth noted as UP) states “[t]hat instances, of which we have had no experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same” (Hume 89). He also believes that “we must provide one of two types of justification for UP: (a) Show that UP is the conclusion of a deductive argument, or (b) show that UP is based on experience” (Crumley 15). He shows that it is not possible to prove this principle deductively because of problems of circularity, and that to show that it is based on experience is to be similarly circular. That is, providing evidence for something and using this as a justification for a believe is precisely what induction is all about, and so one ends up justifying induction through induction. (Crumley 14-16)
The first me...
... middle of paper ...
...is only really problematic when an unpalatable and unattainable definition of “reasonable” is used. I have shown that Black provides a good start to the problem, but that his solution is ultimately unconvincing to skeptics of induction. And I’ve attempted to address the problem that Salmon brings up; that is, I’ve attempted to show that it is improper and non-valuable to try to provide reasons for induction. My conclusion, then, is that as long as being reasonable is something that is possible to be, humans are, in fact, reasonable.
Works Cited
1. Black, Max. Caveats and Critiques. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1975.
2. Crumley, Jack S II. An Introduction to Epistemology. Mountain View, California: Mayfield, 1999.
3. Salmon, Wesley. “Should We Attempt to Justify Induction?” Philosophical Studies 8 (April 1957): 33-48.
I will argue that Hume's argument is plausible in explaining why it is highly improbable for a miracle to occur because no testimony given by a person can establish a miracle, as it would require an explanation that overrules the laws of nature, which is highly unlikely. I agree with Hume's argument, and believe that it is correct; however, there are some objections I have in regards to some of his points.
I will discuss Nelson Goodman’s understanding of the problem of induction. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises (propositions) provide strong evidence for the truth of its conclusion. I will begin by examining an inductive argument where using the proposition that “all observed emeralds are green”, we can conclude that “all emeralds are green”. As shown, sometimes, through such arguments we draw conclusions based on unobserved cases. This can be considered a problem (the problem of induction), especially if such conclusions are made without any justification.
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
In the late 20th century, the one child policy was established, and still continues today, although it is slightly altered. In the first twenty years of the one child policy, China’s population went from 1.3 billion to 300 million, which is why the policy has changed. Today, the one child policy has changed; depending on the couple, if one or both of the parents is a single child, they may have a second child. The one child policy had started due to the overp...
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
China’s culture is influenced by many things, but how has the one-child policy affected China’s culture? The one-child policy is a limitation set by the government to restrict the number of children a family can have, one. They passed the law in 1979 when they feared a steep increase in the Chinese population.
Paley, William. “Natural Theology,” in Introduction to Philosophy. 6th edition. Perry, Bratman, and Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2013, pp. 47-51.
In China the people struggle to find food because the population is exceeding the normal numbers, leading the country to the creation of a one-child policy in order to control it. The one-child policy means that each couple is only allowed to have one child and is fined if they conceive more. This controversial situation has caused many questions for example: Is only being limited to having one child a good idea to reduce China's population and economy? The one-child policy is in my opinion a good idea, although it comes with many sacrifices. Another reason people benefited from the policy is that with the rule of only being able to give birth to one child the parents were able to give the child their attention and resources.
In United State we get a change to choose the right of the amount children we can have, but in other country like China, they have different view of children, and how they are treated. The one child policy was intended to help control population growth in China, but it has effected adoption, the numbers of abandoned and human rights.
The thesis of hard determinism is that the notion that every event is caused in accordance with causal laws, which account completely for its occurrence. Obviously, for the hard determinist, nothing is uncaused. We can't even imagine what it would mean for a thing to be “uncaused.” If you have A – B has to happen. It could not happen any other way and it must happen that particular way. The hard determinist claims that for every event there are antecedent causes that ensure the occurrence and that is indubitable.
In China, there was a One-Child policy fully put in place in 1980 to help press a brake on the growing populace (History1). Though this policy was recently tweaked, there is still currently a child limit policy in China based off of the One-Child policy. In placing limits on the amount of children a woman can have, China tells that, “Authorities claim that the policy has prevented more than 250 million births between 1980 and 2000, and 400 million births from about 1979 to 2011”(One1). By preventing all of these births, the population of the world was not affected as greatly by a baby boom like it would have been if these pregnancies had been carried
China’s one child policy was a bad idea. It had its goods and bads, but was it
China has created a law that only allows for a family to have one child. This law is in an attempt to control population control. This law has caused families to terminate pregnancy’s as well as to abandoned a child if it was not the gender the family had hoped for. Population control is harmful to children and families. Having children is a personal decision and should ...