editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
While championing Newton’s inductive method, Hume also exposed its limitations by showing that conclusions drawn by inductive reasoning could not be rationally justified. As discussed above, Hume argued that knowledge of cause and effect comes only from the constant conjunction of particular phenomena in experience, which allows the use of induction to draw conclusions about cause and effect. [[CiteRef::Morris and Brown (2016)]][[CiteRef::De Pierris (2006)]] Hume envisions such an inductive argument as follows:
1) "•I I have found that such and such an object has alwayshad such and been attended with such an effect..." •I 2) "I foresee , that other objects , which appear are in appearance, similar , willhave be attended with similar effects." [[CiteRef:: Hume (17481975) |p. 16114]]
Newton supposed that the use of such inductive arguments could be justified by an appeal to the uniformity of nature. [[CiteRef::De Pierris (2006)]] Hume however, found a fundamental problem in rationally justifying inductive arguments. Consider the following argument, which might seem to justify our reliance on induction:
