171
edits
Changes
m
no edit summary
Within this argument, the premise assumes the conclusion and, as such, the argument implies a vicious circle. In this sense, the first example shows an irrational train of thought. It seems then, that Hume established there is no way that reason could be the connection between cause and effect. Thus, Hume sought another connection between cause and effect. He eventually recognized this connection to be custom or habit. This is more commonly known today as induction. As a person experiences something repeatedly, they grow to expect it to happen again. However, despite being an adequate connection, this solution forces the abandonment of reason within causal inference.
|Criticism=Historically, due to the threatening nature of Hume’s distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact as well as his problem of induction there have been many critics of Hume. One of the most prominent critics to criticize Hume on the account of his distinction between the types of propositions was [[Emmanuel Kant]]. Kant theorized that the world was interpreted through sensory and intellect and thus there must exist some sort of a priori synthetic proposition.[[CiteRef::Kant, Immanuel, Marcus Weigelt, and F. Max Muller. ''Critique of Pure Reason.'' London: Penguin, 2007. Print. ]] The existence of such a proposition would of course result in a proposition that fit both categories of Hume’s distinction. Kant’s a priori synthetic proposition was unfortunately debunked, however, with the arrival of probabilistic determinism.
In terms of criticisms for the problem of induction, most philosophers seem to criticize Hume on this account. One of the more notable cases is the critique [[Karl Popper ]] has towards Hume, stating that induction is a myth.[[CiteRef::Popper, Karl R. "1." ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery''. New York: Basic, 1959. N. pag. Print. ]] Popper argued science is created by conjecture and criticism rather than reference to the past, and that the main purpose of observations wasn’t to make inferences about the future but to refute present existing theories. Popper was committed to the idea that Hume was asking the wrong question ‘how can theories that cannot be justified by induction, otherwise be justified?’ Popper, instead, preferred to look for a process by which to correct errors.[[CiteRef::Popper, Karl R. ''Conjectures and Refutations''; the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic, 1962. 128. Print. ]]
Wesley Salmon responded to this criticism in Hume’s place, stating theories still need predictions to be tested. When Popperians have multiple theories, each sharing the same quantity of empirical content, Popperians would choose the theories which were better corroborated but lack any justification in this decision. The Popperians either make an inductive claim: