Thread: Problem of Induction

Originally Posted by Xei

I was wondering what philosophy of science people here hold, and why.

In particular, what do you think about Hume's problem of induction: that there is no basis for thinking that if certain things are repeatedly seen to act in certain ways, then they will continue to act in certain ways? I think it's clear that science and induction can never be proof, but what is our justification for even suspecting that, for instance, all swans are white, or if you drop an object it will fall to Earth? Does science even imply that we should suspect these things? If not, what use is science?

It's worth noting that 'it has tended to work in the past' is itself an inductive argument.

If something has been proven to be true every time in the past, multiple times, then we can assume it will always be true in the future.
If it is not true for some reason later on, the knowledge of that thing will just change to say "This is usually true, but very, very occasionally it is not true".

So if you are making a decision, you can take the minor exception to the rule in to account. But realise that the possibility of it not being true again is very very small.

That's what makes science useful. Probability finding.

Of course, almost nothing is true 100% of the time. Eventually it will be wrong in some instance. And that anomaly just gets assimilated in to the current scientific knowledge base.

I don't see how there is a problem tbh.