Epistemology: Hume's Skepticism and Induction Part 2

How do we know stuff about matters of fact that we have yet to observe? For example, how do I know that the sun will rise tomorrow? A natural answer is that we have this knowledge through induction: I know the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen every day in the past. Now, the philosopher David Hume recognized that this inductive reasoning assumes that the future will resemble the past. Why though think that this assumption is true? How do we know that the future will resemble the past? This question is the starting point for Hume's skeptical argument against induction (and his skeptical solution), which Daniel Greco lays out in detail in this video.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[KeiNaarr]

Hey Mr. Greco, thanks for this video. I study Hume at the moment for class and it's very helpful. I just thought about something: in your example about black hair, don't you also make an argument relying on induction, since you're saying there's a good chance your haire won't be black based on the knowledge or you parents and great-grandparents - isn't that also inductive reasoning?

[JamesPeach]

I like what one of Hume's character says in response to a skeptic in his book "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". When Cleanthes interpretes Philo's position as to doubt everything he get's a little upset and asks whether Philo will exit through the window at the end of their discourse.

"Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: We shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt, if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience." - David Hume

[fahadAKAme]

great video i'm using it revise for a final tomorrow but, still i would like to see more of this!. most philosophy channels mention biographical information on philosophers but, they rarely touch on epistemology.

[TheSteinmetzen]

You're lectures are clear and concise, Mr. Greco. Thank you.

[eeven]

Yes. Would love to hear the continuation of the discussion regarding Hume’s skepticism.

[ToddHowardBethsoft]

Good video but aren't you using inductive reasoning yourself at 2:07. Your reasoning is as follows. Every humans hair so far has become gray when they age, so my hair must become gray when I age as well. Now of course this inductive argument sound a lot more reasonable then the no hair color change argument, as we've confirmed it ourselves multiple times. But still it doesn't necessarily have to mean your hair will become gray because of the nature of inductive arguments.

[xeganxerxes]

Mmm. Scientific laws, like gravity, aren’t just empirical observations. They do have a logical back up e.g. a mathematical interpretation of Newton’s Law which follows logically when you calculate results, and can be used to also give future predictions this way, rather than just using experience - for example, calculating the year Haley’s comet will pass by earth - which couldn’t be done by inductive reasoning of our experience of gravity alone.
Of course, you could argue we don’t know anything we see, but I think the fact that nature follows logical mathematical laws which from a least a basis of logic (in a world where two plus two didn’t equal four -and we know deductively it does- Newton’s laws couldn’t work). This implies a connection between ‘the mere operation of thought’ and ‘matter of fact’, though you could never really know for sure I suppose.

[k.dickson]

Thank you Mr Greco. This has been very helpful for my son’s revision.

[amamaq]

5 years and I see it now and find it useful and want to give ideas for videos in future for my study 🪐

[BizzyIzzy]

This video was so helpful, thank you! You are so well-spoken, the examples were simple enough for me to understand, and the video is very well made overall so please keep up the good work!!

[nblumer]

If we are wired for inductive reasoning, and it is inherently irrational, then it seems that skepticism by way of seeking verification is still either relying on the induction of others or our ability to adapt and refine our perceptions (which may be constrained by our own cognitive limitations). What's the way out?

[kmdash]

This is also a problem with it comes to falsifying theories. Since science assumes that the laws of nature are uniform, when we find contradictions we say "well, there has to be a deeper reality." But as we keep inventing deeper realities to create new scientific laws that consistently describe everything, we get a problem, are we really being scientific if we fail to abandon the uniformity of nature given new data?

[drewjones]

thanks for the video, though the magic eight ball and sea turtle examples i feel completely missed the boat on what hume is getting at... food for thought

[Diamondragan]

I got lost at the last part with the magic 8-ball. If you asked the magic 8-ball the same question over and over, you would eventually get every single answer the 8-ball can provide. However, using induction, the answer will remain the same until the assumptions the induction is based on have changed. This would make induction superior by the nature of being based off of something that allows for scrutiny and discretion, which is the process of falsification that science is based off of. From this process of falsification we can eventually model reality after the least frequently wrong things, approaching a complete understanding.

So what is being ignored or emphasized in the claim that reason is not a better tool than a magic 8-ball? I obviously missed something.

[denitachungkham]

Thankyou soo much Mr.Greco..Ur videos helped a lot!

[maxdoubt]

Experience tells us that induction is reliable. If it occasionally fails, that's OK. Cars and appliances break down but I believe, based on induction, that neither will happen to me today. I believe my car will start and my fridge won't break down. Isaac Asimov had a good example: before Everest was summited, he predicted it soon would be because climbers kept getting closer and closer. He was right.

[paulharris]

As finite creatures, consequence is our director amidst prevailing conditions...

[Samucacamilo]

What a great video and great channel. Thank you

[vincentliu]

I feel like since we have used the "it has happened in the past so it will happen in the future" argument before successfully, there is more basis to trust induction than a magic 8 ball, wouldn't this show that induction is still the "best" way determine what to do in the future?

[selimeoziskender]

What is the app used for preparing these videos?