The Problem of Induction - Assignment Example

The Problem of Induction Induction is the method of reasoning based on experiences. The method of induction infers one’s previous experiences to predict the future. The problem of induction concerns providing supportive justifications and description of the inductive principles. Major philosophers such as Hume and Descartes formulated the inquiry into how best the methods of induction can be exclusively applicable in predicting future occurrences as opposed to deductive methods that proposes possible causes to a particular scenario (Ladyman 33). In inductive reasoning, one may argue that the sun would rise the following day. The argument is valid because the sun has never failed to rise. However, critics may argue that the usual observations that the sun has always risen cannot be a claim to justify that it would rise the following day. The claim that a particular vegetable is green does not validate the assertion that future vegetables of a similar kind would be green. The claim becomes untrue if there is a significant change in nature that affects the vegetables’ genetic pattern to alter the green color to another. The problem of induction has raised concerns in the field of philosophy with some scholars supporting the claim while opposing it. The article herein will analyze the various aspects of the inductive methods and the different justifications set forth by scholars. The article will further determine the appropriateness of the method and attempt to justify solutions to the problems associated with the inductive methods. Philosopher Hume formulated an inquiry to the problem of induction and claimed that it is insoluble. John Stewart Mill responded and gave a more explicit formulation of another important class of inductive problems. J.S. Mill inquired why some methods just required a single inference to be true while others could not prove as true after numerous inferences (Ladyman 35). For instance, meteorologists have used the inductive methods to forecast the weather in some regions of the world, and it worked. Scientific research has enabled an improvement of technology. The medics have invented new drugs that treat diseases that could otherwise killed many individuals. In this respect, the inductive methods are valid and useful in human reasoning. However, the method lacks rational justification. The successful conclusions justify the methods. Furthermore, it is not always necessary to prove a method or belief to validate its applicability to be accepted as evident in the religious domain. Human beings often believe what they hear from other people. Scientific research may warn of the dangers of using a certain drug or method to get a result (Bird 61). It does not require the person advised to test the claim to believe it as true. The result would be either that the individual would die if he tested the claim for himself or cause the death of another person if the latter is used as a specimen in the experiment. In case the experimenter dies, nobody would draw the conclusions, and if a third party observes the result, it will not benefit the experimenter. Skeptics of the method of induction have argued that the principle is under-determined, cannot be justified and described. The questions of justification and description both arise from under-determination of the method. Under-determination in this respect refers to the method’s inability to justify that the initial principles are the result of the observed outcome. In the previous example, this claim states that the observation of the daily sunrise does not guarantee the fact that it would rise the following day. The description of inferences may also constitute under-determination. A person may describe certain evidence, but the interpretation would depend on another person’s perception. The latter may either accept or criticize the claim based on their experiences. Chomsky and Kuhn formulated the approach of under-determination to prove the ineffectiveness of the inductive methods of reasoning. Kuhn argued that an additional set of explanatory principles resulted in better and reliable judgments. Chomsky, however, did not argue for principles but additional rules. Kuhn’s argument proves to be valid since human nature learns by experience. Students learn through consistent tutorials and reading from books. Scientific research involves the application of previously tried and proven principles to conduct a study. The process is, therefore, of successive nature where future studies build on the already tried principles. The results of the study are observable and functional. Without the principles, it would mean that every individual carrying out a similar research would begin from scratch. The task would be laborious, as my inductive reasoning suggests, and, furthermore, every individual would come up with an entirely different principle. Human memory can store the information of their experiences. Assuming someone took a cup of hot coffee and felt the pain of the burn, the next cup of hot coffee would be hot. The claim does not require any justification or description to prove as true. The justification of the inductive principles comes before the description, and it aims at stating the kinds of doctrines used and their validation. The justifications relate the arguments premise with their conclusions (Ladyman 33). The inductive arguments explain the deductively invalid arguments that are true. In induction, the evidence’s objectives are to give the truth. The inductive methods do not depend on outcomes to be true to ascertain its validity. Some of the inductive methods may lead from truth to falsehood. It is, however, necessary to get the inferences that are true and consequently result in truth. The under-determination effect compromises the reliability of the inferences. Nevertheless, philosophers for the inductive methods argue that the actual world of inductive methods entails arguments that regard as true. Descartes explained the method while applying the human senses as an example to criticize inductive methods. He argued that our senses could perceive a mountain that is some distance in front. He stated that the senses often mislead when what we observe are small and therefore we should not trust our senses to derive the conclusions. The argument relies on the under-determination effect. However, the conventional reasoning of close analysis of the small objects gives a real meaning of what our senses perceive (Ladyman 38). The concept of under-determination does not thus apply. The inductive claim does not have proof, and its reliability relies on assuming that the claim is as stated. The unobserved experiences, therefore, behave in a similar manner to the previous observed experiences as a result. To justify the claim that the sun would rise the following day calls for a similar justification that nature is indeed uniform. Inductive reasoning presents as the best method to prove the uniformity of nature over deductive claims since the proof depends on massive predictions. The procedure, however, becomes hopeless to justify the inductive principles to the skeptics since they already have doubts about the process. The description process aims at explaining how the inductive principles work. The process does not demonstrate the reliability of the principles but explains the inferential practices. The description does not suffer skeptical criticisms like the justification process. The description should be possible and easy. However, the description is a hard process since the action, and the explanation may differ. It is possible for one to know how to do something but have no idea of the procedure. The under-determination effect is still a problem. There could be missing parts of the principles thereby compromising a sequential description. The problem is, however, similar to the scientific theories that incorporate many assumptions. The theories yield successful results when applied to the scientific fields irrespective of the numerous assumptions present in their formulations (Bird 56). The responses to the problem of induction succeed in explaining its necessity in explaining occurrences that deductive methods could not otherwise explain. As discussed above, inductive reasoning relies primarily on the uniformity of nature to facilitate the formulation of the inferences. Some of the conclusions or outcomes of inductive reasoning are true thus do not require any justification or description to validate the claims (Howson 52). For instance, the case of sunrise requires universal acceptance because the previous occurrences have not produced contradicting results. It is, therefore, obvious that future results would take a similar form, whether or not the justification and description exist. Scientific research and reasoning rely heavily on inductive reasoning to realize the current advancements in technology. The process is, therefore, valid in the scientific field amidst skeptical claims that the issues behind its description and justification are insoluble. Observation of the outcomes of the inductive methods is the only means of eliminating the doubt and assuming the working and formulation principles of the method. Former novel inventions relied heavily on the inductive methods of reasoning. The medical applications in treatments involve trial and error (Howson 44). Doctors try the effectiveness of a drug in the laboratory and gather numerous results that have similar outcomes. If the drug treats many test patients, the doctors conclude that the drug would be effective in treating every person with a similarly tested illness. The invention of aspirin took a similar path. The traditional population realized that people could heal from headaches after taking the drug. They had no idea how the drug relieved people from headache. Later advancements in technology synthesized aspirin in the laboratories based on past experiences that it treated headache. The scientific induction, therefore, is a generalization of numerous similar previous occurrences. The proof becomes true if the conclusion is similar to the desired result. The method of induction, therefore, becomes applicable to many scientific and other extraordinary occurrences amid claims that it is insoluble (Bird 59). Assuming the insolubility part and concentrating on the outcome solves the issue of doubt and skepticism. In conclusion, the problem of induction is insoluble, as some clarifications require description and justification of the natural phenomena. The difficulty posed in justifying and explaining the occurrences in the universe results in challenges when explaining the inductive principles. To avoid skepticism and criticisms, it is advisable that the researchers consider the outcomes and the numerous observations. It requires the provision of a better alternative to dispute an observation. The deductive methods have failed to explain the future while inductive methods have formed a basis for predictions. Since there is no other alternative way, the inductive methods suffice predictive reasoning. Works cited Bird, Alexander. Arguing about Science. London: Routledge, 2013. Print. Howson, Colin. Humes Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Print. Ladyman, James. Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, 2012. Print. Read More