hume vs. Induction
This is an excerpt from the paper...
David Hume, a skeptical empiricist, in other words someone who only certain accepts things as fact with empirical evidence, tries to ask and answer epistemological questions in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In other words, Hume inquires into questions of knowing, or how we know what we know. In his distinction between matters of fact and relations of ideas, we see that Hume sees a challenge to inductive knowledge as our means of knowing. In deductive logic, one argues from a general rule. In inductive logic, the opposite occurs because one reasons to a general rule. Inductive logic begins with reason and tries to deduce a general rule from it. For example, we walk into a room and see Socrates at a table with a bag on it and do not know what is in the bag. We reach into the bag and pull out a handful of white beans. We reach in a second time and stir up the contents before pulling out another handful of all white beans. We repeat this. After repeating this several times and pulling out several more handfuls of all white beans, we reasonable infer that the white beans represent some kind of specific case of a more general rule, i.e. all the beans in the bag are white. The syllogism for the above example of inductive reasoning would appear as follows: These beans from this bag are white (specific case) These beans are white. (conclusion drawn) All the beans in the bag are white (general rule)
. . .
we can never know the relationship between them through reason. In this manner, we cannot reason that God exists, for instance, merely because we think he does. He argues it is our feelings that provide us with our sense of what is or is not and what is right or wrong. Some of our morality is based on human nature (sympathy) to Hume, and some of it is a product of social influence (justice). All of our beliefs and actions are engendered in us as the products of habit or custom, and since it is not possible for humans to use causal reasoning there is no basis for a proof of God. If we had the ability for causal reasoning we would be inclined to assume God could not exist as the perfect creator faced with all the imperfections in the world about us. On his deathbed, Hume was still arguing the limits involved in inductive reasoning, “Yes, it is possible that the soul is immortal. It’s also possible that if I toss this piece of coal into the flames of that fire, it will not burn. Possible, but there is no basis for believing it-not by reason, and not by sense perception, not by our experience” (Lavine 171).
Hume says we cannot do this because we would have to assume that all nature is uniform if we do. He says it is impo
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Instead Hume, Human Understanding, David Humes, David Hume, Bantam Books, inductive reasoning, white beans, hume believed, inductive logic, beans bag white, Clarendon Press, bag white, rationalists argue, argue knowledge, uniformity nature, beans bag, rule inductive logic, rule inductive, Concerning Human, concerning human understanding, handful white beans, argue knowledge based,
Approximate Word count = 1215
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
