The Problem of Induction - Essay Example

The Problem of Induction Introduction In the philosopher’s sense, induction concerns the process of reasoningon which people base their inferences about observations they make. The problem of induction relates to the philosophical inquiry into the possibility of inductive reasoning leading to understanding of classical philosophical logic. Induction is basically a process of reasoning in which an individual makes inferences from a more specific to the general. Arguments founded on induction ranges from extremely low to very high probabilities, but usually less than hundred percent. However strong, no inductive argument warrants certainty of its conclusion. David Hume held that no truth can be obtained about a theory regardless of how man tests of hypothesis passes. Hume assumed that an enumerative induction would exist if an inductive reasoning is consistent when it results into roughly true conclusions frequently. This paper explores the challenge that the problem of induction raises for the status of scientific knowledge and possible solution to the challenge. Formulation of the Problem of Induction For a quick formulation of the problem of induction, Born argues that “. . . no observation or experiment, however extended, can give more than a finite number of repetitions” (Bird & Ladyman 2012, pg. 31). Inductive argument is founded on numerous inferences based on different observations of an event. Each observation yields new conclusions. For example, based on a chain of observations that a man jogs to work at 6a.m on Friday, it appears justifiable to conclude that the man will jog to work next Friday, or generally, that the man jogs to work every Friday. The next Friday the man jogs to work does not provide evidence that the man usually jogs at 6a.m to work on Fridays, but simply add on to the number of observations made. David Hume argues that such inductive claims tend to be short of certainty because they rely on the assumption that the past tells the future. Also, the observations do not provide any evidence of inductive argument, but inductively. The logical challenge of induction problem emerges out of David Hume’s discovery that it is unfeasible to validate a law through observation or trial because it goes beyond experience and from the fact that science suggests and utilizes laws universally and at all times. Further, science is based on the principle of empiricism, which holds that only observation and experiment determines whether a scientific claim, law or theory, is accepted or rejected. The three principles above: Hume’s discovery of the impossibility to substantiate a law by observation or experimentation, the fact that science is founded on law and the principle of empiricism, appear to collide with each other. This clash is what amounts to the logical problem of induction (Bird & Ladyman 2012). David Hume’s problem of Induction David Hume’s argument first appeared in his great philosophical piece of publication, the Treatise of Human Nature, which he wrote in his twenties. Hume’s argument also surfaced a decade later, but more succinctly in An Inquiry into Human Understanding. In this piece of work, Hume referred to deductive reasoning as “reason” while “induction” meant inductive argument. In his argument, Hume clarified that no conclusion from observation or the future is deductive. Hume first meditates on the discovery of causal relationships on which “matters of fact” are founded. According to Hume, causal relations are never discovered by reason, but through induction. His reason is that for every particular cause, there are numerous effects, and the precise effect cannot be arrived at by interpretation of the cause. However, an individual must make observations on incidences of the causal relation in order to prove that the claim is true. One cannot prefer effects emerging out of one observation over the rest of observations. According to Hume, predictions can only be made inductively through earlier observations. As such, there is no justification that future causal relations will be similar to those of the past. Hume argues that the negation of the claim does not cause contradiction. Further, Hume mulls over the validation of induction. According to him, if every event is founded on causal relations discovered by induction, therefore, induction must be justified. Hume bases his argument on the assumption that there is a valid link between past and future observations, which are connected by induction and not reasoning. In his endeavor, Hume posses a challenge for other philosophers to develop deductive reason for linking past and future observation of events that are perceived to have causal relationships. Inductive reasoning offers no explanation for causal relations of events. Consequently, the problem of induction does not only focus on the uncertainty of inferences made by induction, but also the law and principles used to make the inferences. Hume explains that the repercussions tend to be nowise crucial. However, he comes up with some argument which states: People’s belief that particular forms of inductive arguments are strong is a mental or psychological belief. The belief emerges out of a habit, which is entirely independent of the future. Coherent justifiability demands the future dependability of induction. The potency of individuals’ conviction does not constitute an evidence for cogent validity of an induction. Hume’s logical and psychological problems of induction, focused on human knowledge. In answering the two problems; logical and psychological, Hume contradicts himself. In his response to the validity of making inference about the future based on past experiences, he refutes the idea and replies with a No. On his answer to the psychological problem of why people tend to have a conviction that their past experiences will conform to their future experience, Hume responds by arguing that the reason is because of custom or habit. He says that people are conditioned by repetitive observations. Through these results, Hume became skeptical and a believed irrationalism epistemology. The results led Hume to infer that reason plays a trivial role in human understanding. Russell on Hume’s conclusion, asserts that the rejection of induction would mean that all attempts to develop general scientific laws from given observations is mythical. Also, he argues that Hume’s skepticism is inevitable for an empiricist. Basically, Hume’s problem of induction seems to fall into two categories. The first category is the descriptive problem, which focuses on how people develop opinions about unobserved things. The second category is justification problem, which focuses on the validity of the opinions formed about future or unobserved scenarios (Gabbay, Woods & Hartmann 2010). Nelson Goodman's New Problem of Induction In his “Fact, Fiction and Forecast,” Nelson Goodman offered a distinct account of the problem of induction, which he called "The New Riddle of Induction." Goodman suggested a new element, “grue.” In his explanation, he argues that an object is grue if and only if its past observation reveals it to be green and blue in future period. The new problem of induction he supposes is making an inference that after sometime or in the future, we will have all objects (emeralds) which are blue in color. Therefore, the question that emerges is that why not have grue emeralds in the future? As such, the problem that comes out is that the two distinct inductions stand to be accurate of bogus under similar conditions (Godfrey-Smith 2003). However, Goodman clarifies that the predicate “grue” tends to be more complex than it counterpart “green” because grue has been defined on the basis of blue and green. He argues that whichever scientific hypotheses researchers favor rely on the predicate ingrained in the language used (Godfrey-Smith 2003). Solutions to the Challenge of Problem of Induction Hume’s “Skeptical Solution” Human reasoning cannot be separated from induction. If people were purely rational, there would be no convictions founded on induction. Similarly, the possibility of making generalization about the future would be non-existent. Life would somehow be static. Consequently, through beliefs, people are compelled by nature to reason inductively and make inferences of certain matters. Hume’s argument is that, while we remain oblivious of the actual causal relations, people can solve the problem of induction through experiences. He applies “skeptical solution” to the problem of induction. According to this approach, statements about causal relations of events should be understood as claims about the connections in the minds of people and such conceived ideas. Among the possible solutions to the problem of induction is to translate every subjective or psychological terms, particularly belief into objective terms every time the logical problems are at risk. “Statement” can be used in place of “belief” or “explanatory theory” for “impression” among others. The translation into objective form will be applicable to logical problem and not the psychological problem. Popper’s Solution to the Problem of Induction Karl Popper is one of the philosophers who sought to provide an answer to the problem of induction. According to him, science does not utilize induction and induction is in itself a myth. He argues that knowledge is developed through speculation and criticism. His main idea is that observations together with experiments are aimed at finding flaws in existing scientific theories, which leads to their acceptance or rejection (Popper 2002). Popper postulates that the problem of induction entails asking the wrong question of how to validate theories because theories cannot be justified by induction. He argued that there is absolutely no need for justification, but the right thing to do is to pursue errors and rectify them. He views theories that have stood against criticism to be well substantiated, but not probably true. According to Popper, focusing on finding theories that are most likely to be true is a misplaced priority and numerous attempts to fault them have never yielded positive gains (Popper 2002). The commonsense challenge of the problem of induction is founded on the “bucket theory of mind”, which holds that nothing gets into the mind that has not passed through human senses. Popper’s argument is based on three major pillars: There exists no rationally correct style of induction No dependable method of induction exists There exists a coherent critical method of science Popper differentiates Hume’s problem of induction. He claims that induction by repetitive occurrences does not exist. In spite of this claim, it does not hold that a simple enumerative induction does not yield true conclusions or a near certain inference at all times. Popper refutes Hume’s assumption that simple enumerative method offers a reliable method of induction. He proceeds to restructure the logical problem of induction where he questions whether an explanatory universal theory is justifiable through assumption of the facts about observation claims. Popper is in agreement that no universal theory can be justified by making assumptions about the reality of observation claims. However, Popper confirms that it is right to assert that an explanatory universal theory is accurate or wrong by assuming the facts about observation statements (Popper 2002). However, Popper’s claim has been criticized by some professionals. To begin with, Wesley C. Solomon, faults Popper by offering a counterargument that predictions are necessary for practical reasons and testing theories as well. He claims that Popperians show the desire to select well corroborated theories, but are faced with a dilemma in their choice. They are either making their clams by induction that theories which are well substantiated stand to provide reliable future predictors or the corroboration provides no indication absolutely. As such, Solomon refutes Popper’s approach by arguing that no rationality exists in Popper’s preferred theory selection principle. However, David Miller defended Popper’s principle of choosing well corroborated theories. He argues that the criticism of the likes of Solomon is misplaced because it is based on inductive assumptions. He faults the argument by Solomon that Popper suggest that corroboration is indicates predictive capability. His argument is that the theory itself holds the predictive power and not the corroboration. His perception is that Popper is right on the principle of choosing well-substantiated theories. Pragmatic Justification Hans Reichenbach and Wesley Solomon provide a fresh reaction to Hume’s problem. Reichenbach recognizes the magnitude of the problem and dispute both deductive and inductive approaches to validate inductive principle by providing a pragmatic validation for induction. His argument is that it is more practical support inductive reasoning compared to any other way of arguing from experience. Reichenbach’s argument is that, with inductive reasoning, there is at least some chance of succeeding unlike other reasoning approaches, which have remote chance of success. As such, induction is the most valid choice among other reasoning methods. However, many criticisms have been projected towards Reichenbach’s response to the problem of induction. The main drawback of the pragmatic justification is that it is non-epistemic validation. While Reichenbach’s response encourages inductive reasoning, it does not reveal any precise possibility of it success. A strong solution to the problem of induction reinforces the belief that induction is reliable by providing a reason. A Priori Justification According to Laurence Bonjour, the only reliable solution to the problem is an a priori justification (Bonjour 1998). While accepting the problems of his approach, Bonjour argues that an objective universal regularity can be validated a priori by assuming that it offers the best clarification of inductive proof. However, this argument supposes a universe that has factual stable causal relations among objects. Bonjour does not even provide how an individual might start to provide a priori justification for metaphysical standpoint. Conclusion Inductive reasoning forms greater part of human reasoning. The problem of induction entails justification in inductive reasoning method. It focuses on establishing the validity of inductive statements. Many professionals have attempted to offer their solutions to the problem of induction. From the look of things, it can be argued that no satisfactory solution to the problem of induction exists. Various approaches such as a posteriori, the pragmatic as well as the linguistic, intended to offer solution to the problem, exhibit serious flaws. While a priori solution appears to be realistic, Bonjour’s approach tends to leave one of the largest gaps unconnected. Any feasible solution appears to rely on universal a priori information. Bibliography Bird, A & Ladyman, J 2012, “Arguing about Science, Ed,” Routledge, New York, NY. BonJour, L 1998, “In Defense of Pure Reason”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gabbay, DM, Woods, J & Hartmann, S 2010, “Inductive Logic, Vol 10,” North-Holland, Oxford. Godfrey-Smith, P 2003, “Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science,” University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Popper, KR 2002, “Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge 2nd Ed,” Routledge, New York, NY. Read More