Induction: A Methodical Way of Reasoning
Induction is a methodical way of reasoning in which premises lead to conclusions even though there is no assurance that a corresponding event will occur. The primary question raised in discussions of induction as an analytical tool in logic, epistemology, and the philosophy of science is whether or not it can be justified. Since induction is based on cause and effect, according to David Hume, there can be no foundation for it, making it an invalid form of reasoning. He takes a philosophical stance in A Treatise of Human Nature (1738) and supports rational thought over induction, which raises many interesting questions. He draws attention to the epistemological issues with inference. Even though Hume argues that there is no ground for induction, human beings have little choice but to engage in inductive thinking in real life because we base ideas, beliefs and how we reason on probability and logic. This paper is going to examine what takes place when formulating ideas about the occurrence of a future event relying particularly on the occurrence of a previous event and show that it is indeed possible to reach proper conclusions through probability and inductive reasoning.
Prediction Based on Past Events
Hume’s problem of induction covers two areas; how we form opinions about matters of fact we are yet to observe and if beliefs formed this way can be justified. He argues that we cannot derive knowledge about matters of fact through reasoning. Doing this through experience is the only way. Human beings, more often than not, are oblivious to this suggestion and go ahead to use inductive reasoning to derive knowledge about the unobserved matters of fact. For example, one could ask why an individual in their home trusts that when they turn on the tap in their kitchen, water will flow. It is highly likely that this person will say that water flows every day when they do it, and they have no reason to believe anything different would happen as long as the supply is constant. Hume questions the validity of such conclusions. He lets us know that it is possible to have a false conclusion even when the individual starts off at the right place with the right premise. Hume claims that induction fails to rid all doubt as one arrives at a conclusion and therefore cannot be trusted (Harman and Kulkarni 560).
Success of Induction Depends on Context
As we consider Hume’s arguments and claims, it would be wrong to say that all inductive conclusions cannot be justified and that they are false. Induction can be successful, but this depends on factors such as context and the nature of the situation an individual applies it. Successful induction can be done through reasoning or can be a probabilistic character. These two types of induction are said to be effective because the conclusions derived are justifiable. Probabilistic Induction occurs when someone observes frequency in the unfolding of a particular event. The observational evidence helps to come up with inductive references validated by the subjective probability assignments (Hájek and Hall 163). Take for instance an individual who wants to find out if;
Validation through Probabilistic Inferencing
Glass is dropped on the floor (X)
It breaks (Y).
This experiment represents a good example of the cause and effect scenario that Hume believes leads to a wrong conclusion. The individual, in this case, may know from experience that when they drop a piece of glass, it breaks. This proposition immediately dictates the outcome even before the person conducts the experiment. The improper induction is corrected through the use of probabilistic inferencing. Instead of having a preconceived idea and stopping at that, this type of induction calls for action to validate the claim at the beginning. The person would get in position and drop the glass. This process would continue keeping in mind that the probability of the glass breaking is dependent on the frequency of the drops. After numerous drops and the evidence of broken glasses, it would be difficult to dispute the fact that the dropping of another glass will result in a break. Probability induction inferencing helps to validate an induction based on experience and belief in such a way that there is no dispute. The conclusion has a logical explanation; we get to Y from X through an experiment and evidence rather than experience. We learn that the probability of an event happening is dependent on the frequency with which it is allowed to happen.
Induction through Reasoning
Logic is another means of validating conclusions reached through induction. It begins with reasoning where one links an idea to another. Logic comes in to prove this relation. There are two types of reasoning; deductive and inductive. Deductive reasoning is the process through which critical analysis and valid proof lead to conclusions. The premises at the beginning are valid, and this results in a correct conclusion. Inductive logic, on the other hand, begins with inferences that are not necessarily true. These inferences are then offered evidential support to form deductive logic. The premises provide minimal support to the conclusion. The support included along the way brings the outcome to life. Inductive logic should be able to identify a good argument and prove it to be true.
There are some instances where the argument made may not be proven to be true. For instance, an argument may suggest;
- Most babies cry for milk
- Eric is a baby
- Eric is crying for milk.
The reasoning process reaches a conclusion based on inference, but it might not be right. Babies cry for many other reasons. This induction logic does not validate the conclusion because the premise and the following evidence do not provide solid support. Using this option would establish Hume’s claim that we cannot derive knowledge for the unobserved through reasoning. Another example would be as follows;
- All minerals are mined
- Diamond is a mineral
- Diamond is mined
The argument above represents deductive reasoning. The premise makes a factual claim, and therefore the conclusion has to be true. It is a known fact that minerals are mined, and therefore, diamond has to go through the same because it is a mineral, whether we like it or not. This method of reasoning can be used to solve the problem of induction. The path that leads to the conclusion is rich in facts; the argument doesn't consider past experiences, which takes care of Hume’s concern.
Conclusion
In summary, examples in this paper show that it is indeed possible to use observation and facts from past events to predict the occurrence of future ones. This proof shows that Hume was wrong about inductive reasoning and his problem of induction can be solved. We cannot, however, negate his concern that people often use experiences from the past to determine future events. Choosing this preference is not unsound because people use it positively on a daily basis to make conclusions that are helpful to them: but when employed in the wrong way, it can lead to false conclusions. Hume’s argument that there can be no ground for induction is therefore not true because when used correctly through probability and reasoning, induction develops robust predictions of the future based on facts and analysis.
Works Cited
Hájek, Alan, & Ned Hall. "Induction and probability." The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science, 2002, pp. 149-172.
Harman, Gilbert, & Sanjeev R. Kulkarni. "The problem of induction." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 72, issue 3, 2006, pp. 559-575.
