Justifying Induction

Question 1

Example of an argument using enumerative induction (induction)

Answer 1

A1 is B,
An s B
No A that is not B has been observed
-----
The next observed A will be B/All A's are B

Not deductively valid, possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. For example, the chickens think they will be fed every morning.
The more instances of evidence, the stronger the argument is.

Question 2

The Problem of Induction

Answer 2

To justify inductive reasoning, either a deductive argument or an inductive argument must be used. According to Hume, neither types of argument can successfully justify induction.
There is no way to prove that induction works. Since induction relies on inference and assumption, if we wanted to prove it works we would do so by using an inductive argument pointing to all the times it has been correct in the past. This creates a circular argument and only begs the question.

Question 3

Is Induction Irrational?

Answer 3

Hume claims that rationality is based on induction so it is not irrational but rather not rationally required

Question 4

The Cautious Martian

Answer 4

Has no opinion about whether or not her experiences will be like her past ones

Question 5

The Dogmatist

Answer 5

Forms beliefs about the future that are not informed by beliefs about past experiences/regularities

Question 6

The Counterinductivist

Answer 6

Holds that regularities will not continue to occur in future instances

Question 7

Definitional Response to Problem of Induction

Answer 7

Ordinary Language Philosophy, seeking to define the original meaning of words, so when faced with words such as rational and justified, these by definition rely on past experiences. In this way, induction is ingrained into their meaning.
Words such as ‘rational’ and ‘justified’ relate directly to conforming to inductive, to be ‘rational’ is to be guided by past experiences

Question 8

Problems with the Definitional Response

Answer 8

-It isn’t clear that the meaning of ‘reason’/’rationality’ is as Ayer and Edwards/those using the definitional response is correct, the inductive sceptic can redefine them
-If being rational is just adhering to inferences through induction then we can question whether we should be rational and settle with that or to aim to make justified inferences/should we expect rational inferences to have true conclusions?
Rationality and induction become interchangeable, all due to how the specific person/situation interprets the words.

Question 9

Justifying Induction using Induction

Answer 9

-Hume, cannot reason for induction without using induction and to do so creates a circular argument.
Could be challenged with: -the premises are empirical so they could be false
-no premise in the argument that induction gets us from true premises to true conclusion, reasoning in accordance with a rule (induction) does not entail that the rule gets us from true premises to true conclusion
HOWEVER:
If can be used to justify induction, can also be used to justify counterinduction

Question 10

Pragmatic Justification of Induction

Answer 10

Aims to establish that induction is our best bet, if any method is reliable then induction is. If there is a method to infer the future from the past that is reliable then induction will be used to test the reliability of that method.
-so if the universe is so chaotic that no method is reliable, it does not matter which we use so we can use induction
PROBLEMS:
-if we find that another method is reliable, and induction proves this, it has succeeded in providing evidence for the reliability of the other method but it does not follow that induction is therefore reliable or as successful as the other method
-suppose the universe is very chaotic, it would therefore be wise to suspend judgement all together rather than assume any method of predicting.