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
    There is no valid logical foundation for inductive infere... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no valid logical foundation for inductive inferences drawn from experience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any principle used to justify induction (e.g., 'nature is uniform') must itself be established either a priori or inductively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It cannot be established a priori, as its negation is conceivable; established inductively, it renders the justification viciously circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, no non-circular logical foundation for inductive inference is available, as Hume demonstrated in Treatise I.iii.6.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Popper showed that no finite set of confirming observations entails a universal law, since any such law makes claims about infinitely many cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Probabilistic or Bayesian reformulations of induction presuppose a prior probability distribution whose own justification cannot be grounded in logic alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus even probabilistic inductive frameworks smuggle in non-logical assumptions, leaving the logical gap Hume identified structurally intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All causal claims require experience, understood as the observation of constant conjunctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inductive conclusions infer what has not yet been observed from what has already been observed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is an unbridgeable logical gap between a premise summarizing past observations and a conclusion about the as-yet unobserved.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation2 linked

    Related

    All causal claims require experience, understood as the observation of constant ...Any principle used to justify induction (e.g., 'nature is uniform') must itself ...Inductive conclusions infer what has not yet been observed from what has already...It cannot be established a priori, as its negation is conceivable; established i...
    +5 moreShow less
    Popper showed that no finite set of confirming observations entails a universal ...Probabilistic or Bayesian reformulations of induction presuppose a prior probabi...There is an unbridgeable logical gap between a premise summarizing past observat...Therefore, no non-circular logical foundation for inductive inference is availab...Thus even probabilistic inductive frameworks smuggle in non-logical assumptions,...

    Similar

    Reason cannot justify inductive inference from past to future.81%Justification of an inductive inference does not require a chain of re...81%Additional premises can weaken or strengthen the inference, as is char...80%Circular inference cannot ground justified belief.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-hume-causality
    View source passageHide passage
    In the Enquiry, section 4, part 2, Hume presents his famous skeptical argument concerning causation and induction. Since we need “experience” (i.e., the observation of constant conjunctions) to make any causal claims, Hume now asks (EHU 4.14; SBN 32): “What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience?” The conclusion from an experience of constant conjunction is an inference to what has not yet been observed from what has already been observed, and Hume finds an unbridgeable gap between
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit