DAVID HUME

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether the

inductive reasoning leads to knowledge. That is what is the justification

for either.

1. Generalizing about the properties of a

class objects based on some number of

observations of particular instances of

that class.

2. presupposing that a sequence of

events in the future will occur as it

always has in the past.

“I have found that such an

object has always been

attended with such an effect,

and I forsee that other objects,

which are in appearance ,

similar, will be attended with

similar effects.”

Wat do you see?

Causal relations

“Causal relations are found not by

reason, but by induction. This is

because for any cause, multiple

effects are conceivable, and the

actual effect cannot be determined by

reasoning about the cause;

instead, one must observe

occurrences of the causal relation to

discover that it holds”

Justification of induction

If all matters of fact are based

on causal relations, and all

causal relations are found by

induction, then induction must

be shown to be valid

somehow

But!

As induction is based on an

assumption of the connection

and not reason, it cannot itself

explain the connection

Thank you