Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Hume's challenge concerns the justification of inductive ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Dynamic principles like Conditionalization must be justified in order to justify a proper theory of inference and answer Hume's challenge

    Hume's challenge concerns the justification of inductive inference, not the updating of prior probabilities given new evidence.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hume questioned why unobserved cases should resemble observed ones—a problem distinct from applying Bayes' rule to update existing credences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian updating presupposes inductive principles are justified; it doesn't address Hume's fundamental skepticism about induction itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The problem of the uniformity of nature, central to Hume's challenge, concerns justifying new inferences, not mechanical probability revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian inference *is* inductive inference—updating priors with evidence embodies the same justificatory demands Hume raised about induction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's skepticism applies equally to both: why assume past frequency ratios ground future predictions, whether via rules or probability calculus?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing inference-justification from probability-updating creates a false dichotomy; they're continuous aspects of the same epistemic process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Bayesian inference *is* inductive inference—updating priors with evidence embodi...Bayesian updating presupposes inductive principles are justified; it doesn't add...Distinguishing inference-justification from probability-updating creates a false...Dynamic principles like Conditionalization must be justified in order to justify...
    +3 moreShow less
    Hume questioned why unobserved cases should resemble observed ones—a problem dis...Hume's skepticism applies equally to both: why assume past frequency ratios grou...The problem of the uniformity of nature, central to Hume's challenge, concerns j...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit