From: David Hume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The cornerstone of Hume's epistemology is the so-called Problem of Induction . . . Hume notices that we tend to believe that things behave in a regular manner; i.e., that patterns in the behaviour of objects will persist into the future, and throughout the unobserved present (this persistence of regularities is sometimes called the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature).

Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties, and both of these are inadequate. The two sorts are: (1) demonstrative reasoning, and (2) probable reasoning. With regard to (1), Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular. Turning to (2), Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past, as this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question: it would be circular reasoning. Thus no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences."

Yes. As I said, the inference from the past to the future is merely a special case of inference from the observed to the unobserved, and the unobservable. So, the question really is, why should be accept the observed as evidence for the unobserved and the unobservable, whether the latter is about the past, the present, or the future? To suppose the issue is about inference to the future from the present distorts the problem, because it presents a special case of the problem as the problem itself.

But what is really important is to ask why does inference from the observed to the unobserved require justification? What is wrong with that inference? After all, deductive inference does not seem to require justification; at least Hume does not ask about it. Indeed, he seems to accept it as a standard of justification in terms of which he seems to think that inductive inference does need justification. So, in effect, he seems to be arguing that inductive inference needs justification because inductive inference is not deductive inference. But why should inductive inference be deductive inference? And, how could it be, anyway?

I have no idea why you are trying to draw a distinction between past-present and observed-unobserved. Both are part of the problem as Hume expressed it. He said, "Opinions about unobserved matters of fact are somehow derived from [past] experience. All beliefs about unobserved matters of fact are derived from experience by induction." Yet you seem intent on creating a false dilemma where there is none.

We can eliminate neither the phenomenon of experience nor our experiential history with a subject and make sense of Hume's problem of induction. In my discussion of it in this thread, I've made no attempt to separate observation and the history of experience that would serve as an inductive reasoning base because I don't see how one can possibly describe the "problem" without both aspects. So, once again, I don't know why you are attempting it . . . it makes no sense to me.

Sound is a animal/human perspective, if nobody is there the sound isn't present.

Sound is a animal/human perspective, if nobody is there the sound isn't present.

Does anyone else find it increasingly annoying when such elementary, and clearly redundant questions, like this are put forth as some sort of never-before-heard question and, in turn, want a full explanation of inquiry? While in retrospect this may have qualified as intellectually stimulating (Im guessing 6,000+ years ago) now this mind-numbing aspect of philosophy is just embarrassing.

Thats just my 2-cents though...

Are we not capable of philosophical thought, or are we only able to study the thoughts of dead philosophers.

William

Are we not capable of philosophical thought, or are we only able to study the thoughts of dead philosophers.

William

As Newton famously said about his scientific predecessors like Galileo, and Copernicus, "If I have seen as far as I have, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Knowledge is cumulative, and even if we could reinvent the wheel, what is the point of doing so, if the wheel has already been invented? Philosophers also, "stand on the shoulders of giants". Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and so on. (Besides, we also study the thought of living philosophers who are, as we speak, producing philosophy).

I agree but I think they would say that use the knowledge that is handed down to us but also have our own independent thoughts.
The very first philosopher was on his own.

I don't think there was a "very first" philosopher, anymore than I think there was a very first scientist. And, of course, many of us may have independent thoughts. Whether the thoughts are worth-having is, of course, a different question.

Lol yes some thoughts are not worth thinking. What I meant was you think about things that the ancients did your own way. If your talking about standing on the shoulders of Plato, Aristotle etc, then it goes right back to one, and he didnt have anyone's shoulders to stand on, is what I meant.

There was not a first philosopher; and there was not a first scientist.

What do you mean?

What I said. It is like saying that there was a first English speaker. Why would you think there was a first philosopher, or scientist? Philosophy didn't pop up (I was going to say, "like a mousetrap" but I bet there wasn't even a first mousetrap).Maybe like the atom bomb. Philosophy is not a unique invention. One person did not, suddenly one day, begin to do something entirely new called, "philosophy", no more than did someone wake up one day, and start doing something completely new called, "speaking English".

Yes I get your point, but if your going to talk about standing on the shoulders of the ancient greek philosophers than as far as I can see it goes back to Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.

The origins of Greek philosophy go back before the pre-Socratics. But, it is a convention to start with Thales who fell into a well, and emerged with the revelation that everything is water. That is called, "hasty generalization". Generalizing from a very small sample.

Contemporary philosophers stand more on the shoulders of Descartes and Hume, and other contemporary philosophers, than they do on the shoulders of the pre-Socratics, whose shoulders are probably slumping by now from all that weight.