Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, that the belief in inductive reasoning is only rational on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by an appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or assesses propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is thus, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). Yet even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there are no rational justifications for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still maintain that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in the principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly sound reasons for behaving as if the principle of induction holds true, regardless of whether or not the principle itself is rationally justifiable (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used across many of the belief systems that we as human beings hold, even stretching to the playing field of religion. In this paper I will outline not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is equally as justifiable to believe in an infinite God, regardless of whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for such conclusions.
Let’s begin by examining the issue of universal order and the Problem of Induction. The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is based on the assumption that ...
... middle of paper ...
.... Yet for our own happiness and peace of mind, we must believe that past occurrences, such as the sun rising yesterday and the thousands of days before that, provide us with perfectly good evidence for believing that tomorrow the sun will rise again. By the same token, we can rationally support a belief in God, even if we cannot provide conclusive evidence for His existence (or non-existence). These types of pragmatic justifications are, I believe, essential to the happiness and well-being of human beings. Regardless of whether or not the arguments for the merit and existence of both God and the principle of induction hold any water whatsoever, the optimistic approaches to the problems are in no way harmful. They allow us to live our lives in relative happiness, regardless of the fact that we ultimately can be certain of so little in the universe we live in.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
As we delve deeper into the Philosophical understanding of William Clifford and Blaise Pascal we gain a new understanding of evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Having studied both Pascal and Clifford I lean more with Pascal and his thoughts and teachings that you do not need to have evidence to believe in a higher power. This paper will continue to give more examples of Pascals teachings of non-evidentialism and why I agree with them.
...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.
...t causation argument reasoned out in the first place. There had to be a beginning because “If there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes” (Aquinas, 45).
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
...ion. Hempel’s solution provides to give a reason as to how induction can lead to confirmation and how the logical gap can be filled through the use of logically equivalent statements. However, his view and answer to the paradox prove to be a stretch and lead to the issue of common sense being broken and illogical observations being made to confirm the hypothesis. Good successfully brings attention to this rather blatant error on the part of Hempel to eventually lead to the Raven paradox being invalid. Not only is Good effective in highlighting errors within Hempel’s solution, but Popper, Scheffler, and Goodman are all equally successful in negating individual parts of Hempel’s argument as well. In the end, it is the addition of all these counterarguments that prove to exhibit that Hempel is unsuccessful in trying to come up with a valid answer to the raven paradox.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
The proof for the existence of God is an issue that may never be resolved. It has caused division among families and friends, nations and society. The answer to the question “does God exist?” is almost an impossible one to give with certainty seeing that there is a variety of people, ideas, cultures and beliefs. So how does one know if one’s actions here on earth could have eternal consequences? What is, if any, a “safe bet” to make? Blaise Pascal was a 15th century philosopher and a mathematician who proposed the idea that although one cannot know for certain that God exists, one can make a “safe bet” that it is far better to believe in God than not to believe in God. This is not a proof for the existence of God but rather an idea that suggest that if there is a God, it is in the person’s benefit to believe rather to disbelieve because the odds are in favor of the believer. This gambler-like idea is better known as “Pascal’s Wager” or “The Gambler’s Argument.” Nevertheless, this sort of play-the-ponies idea is not quite precise. Although Pascal’s Wager serves as a stepping-stone for non-believers, it is a rather vague, faithless and inaccurate argument.
The problem of induction has a close relation with the inductive reasoning and such expression as “a posteriori”. There are two distinct methods of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive argument is the truth preserving in which if the premises are true than it follows that the conclusion will be true too. The deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific things. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument that may contain true premises and still has a false conclusion. Induction or the inductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which we make a conclusion about future experience or about presence based on the past experience. The problem of induction also has a connection with the expressions as “a priori” and “a posteriori”. The truth in a priori statement is embedded in the statement itself, and the truth is considered to be as common knowledge or justification without the need to experience. Whereas, in order to determine if a pos...
The first justification is functional: It is only logical that the future must resemble the past. Hume pointed out that we could just as easily imagine a world of chaos, so logic cannot guarantee our inductions. The second justification is that we can assume that something will continue to happen because it has always happened before. To Hume, this kind of reasoning is circular and lacks a foundation in reason. So what is wrong with this circularity? It seems that if you could justify inductive reasoning inductively, why then couldn’t people look into the future to justify the process of looking into the future to gain information? Or, using the very same “inductive” evidence that you have that counter-inductive reasoning does not work, why couldn’t a person using counter-inductive reasoning counter-inductively justify the counter-inductive method? Someone using inductive reasoning would draw from this the conclusion that inductive reasoning will always work better than counter-inductive reasoning, a person using counter-inductive reasoning would draw the opposite conclusion: that counter-inductive reasoning is now more likely than ever before to be more successful than inductive
Six hundred years ago western culture adopted the general scientific model as an unproven assumed perspective. The general scientific model developed as a phenomenon of knowledge that could be tested and replicated by all. The general scientific model presents a foundation of perception upon which theories, assumptions, and most beliefs are based off. Only confined by human limitations, the general scientific model is perceived to have endless possibilities of achievable knowledge. According to the general scientific model there are simply four basic assumptions that base the key to all knowledge: every event has a cause, causes can be known, humans can discover the causes of events, and ignorance of causes is due to improper tools (Portko,
The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types of evidence can also affect the reliability of the truth claim which it supports. The fine line dividing valuable evidence and unreliable proof has since been drawn and debated over from the first schools of thoughts to today’s broad fields of knowledge. Likewise, I will also call upon my own experience and understanding to draw my own line in the grey vicinity of this spectrum.
As part of the digital world’s growing influence on society, we have seen an ever increasing reliance on email as a mode of communication. Yet, issues arise due to the nature of email communication, making it susceptible to misunderstanding. As such, the linguistic discipline of pragmatics studies the reasons for this miscommunications, utilising conventions such as Gricean Conversational Maxims to aid in the understanding initial intentions behind messages. These conventions are regularly flouted, intentionally and unintentionally, causing miscommunication and misunderstanding. As such, obeying these conventions can ultimately reduce misunderstanding between individuals