Hume’s Problem of Induction

Reference: Salmon, et. al Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, pp; 55- 66

( Please read the entire section in the text. This is an important topic)

Hume’s distinction:

 Reasoning concerning Relations of ideas

 Reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence.

This distinction is similar to a priori and a posteriori distinction.

a priori and a posteriori

Broadly there are two ways in which the truth of a statement can be known or justified: on the
basis of experience and independent of experience. Statements whose truth is knowable
independent of (or prior to) experience are called a priori statement ( e.g A=A , All bachelors
are unmarried man). Whereas statements whose truth is knowable on the basis of experience
are a posteriori. ( E.g. A= B, all bachelors are six- foot tall.)

All scientific statements are a posteriori statement. Whenever we make inferences from
observed facts to the unobserved, we are reasoning ampliatively—that is, the content of the
conclusion goes beyond the content of the premises.

Traditional Analysis of Causation

According to the tradition prior to Hume, causation was the foundation of the inference from
the observed to the unobserved.
Constitutive components of Causation

 Temporal priority; the cause comes before the effect.

 Spatiotemporal proximity; the cause and effect are close together in space and time.
 The third component is the necessary connection between the cause and effect
(Tradition assumes that the third component is a necessary connection; however, Hume
argues there is no necessary connection between cause and effect; but there is only a constant
conjunction. )

What is the foundation of casual knowledge?

How do we acquire casual knowledge. In other words, what is the basis to justify our
knowledge of the cause-effect relations?

1. Is it a priori or logical reasoning?

Do we have a priori knowledge of causal relations? Can we look at an effect and
deduce the nature of the cause and vice versa?

2. Is it perception?
3. Is it inductive inference?

What is the principle of inductive inference?

Ans: Uniformity of nature

How uniformity of nature can be justified?

Uniformity of nature can be justified by only using uniformity of nature itself. The
justification of the claim that nature is uniform is circular.