Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Science and induction  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Science and induction  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Science and induction  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge, including science, concerning “matters of fact” is sensory experience  For some, we move from individual experiences/singular statements to generalizations/universal statements using induction (and we certainly often do).  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge, including science, concerning “matters of fact” is sensory experience  For some, we move from individual experiences/singular statements to generalizations/universal statements using induction (and we certainly often do).

2 The Problem of Induction David Hume

3 Empirical generalizations 1.Millions of ravens have been observed and all are black. 2.A non-black raven has never been observed. --------------------------------------------------------- 3.All ravens are black  Are, like other forms of inductive arguments, ampliative  Reasoning moves from the past and present to the future  From what has been experienced to what has not 1.Millions of ravens have been observed and all are black. 2.A non-black raven has never been observed. --------------------------------------------------------- 3.All ravens are black  Are, like other forms of inductive arguments, ampliative  Reasoning moves from the past and present to the future  From what has been experienced to what has not

4 Hume’s question  What justifies our use of induction?  There are, he imagines, two possibilities:  Experience, which concerns matters of fact  Reason, which concerns relations of ideas  And he proposes that we explore each to see if the justification lies there  What justifies our use of induction?  There are, he imagines, two possibilities:  Experience, which concerns matters of fact  Reason, which concerns relations of ideas  And he proposes that we explore each to see if the justification lies there

5 The inference  What does my past or present knowledge about some kind of object (e.g., that bread has always been nourishing) suggest about my next encounter with that kind of object?  Put another way, propositions of the form:  What we have all experienced that X causes Y, and  X will always cause Y Are very different  What justifies such the inference from the first to the second?  What does my past or present knowledge about some kind of object (e.g., that bread has always been nourishing) suggest about my next encounter with that kind of object?  Put another way, propositions of the form:  What we have all experienced that X causes Y, and  X will always cause Y Are very different  What justifies such the inference from the first to the second?

6 Reason (aka Demonstrative Knowledge)  There is no necessary connection between  I’ve always experienced that X causes Y.  I foresee that the next X I encounter will cause Y.  It is logically possible that however many my experiences of X causing Y, it won’t next time, or next week, or next July…  Inductive arguments are not deductively valid.  There is no necessary connection between  I’ve always experienced that X causes Y.  I foresee that the next X I encounter will cause Y.  It is logically possible that however many my experiences of X causing Y, it won’t next time, or next week, or next July…  Inductive arguments are not deductively valid.

7 Experience  Can we appeal to our past experience using induction to justify our use of it?  After all, while not deductively valid, many inductive arguments seem strong and have proven helpful. 1.Induction has worked in the past. So, our use of induction is justified.  Appealing to an inductive argument (that induction has worked in the past) to justify induction is circular.  Can we appeal to our past experience using induction to justify our use of it?  After all, while not deductively valid, many inductive arguments seem strong and have proven helpful. 1.Induction has worked in the past. So, our use of induction is justified.  Appealing to an inductive argument (that induction has worked in the past) to justify induction is circular.

8 The “nature” of Nature: an added premise 1.Induction has worked in Induction will the past. 2.Nature is uniform. ----------------------------------- work in the future. 1.Induction has worked in Induction will the past. 2.Nature is uniform. ----------------------------------- work in the future. 1.The sun rose today. 2.The sun rose yesterday. n.The rose on n. 3.Nature is uniform ----------------------------------- The sun will rise tomorrow.

9 The “nature” of nature  What justifies the premise:  Nature is uniform  It was uniform in the past and it is uniform in the present.  That is, it is also the conclusion of an inductive argument.  What justifies the premise:  Nature is uniform  It was uniform in the past and it is uniform in the present.  That is, it is also the conclusion of an inductive argument.

10 Is this all about “secret powers”?  Is the problem just lack of knowledge?  Say, on Hume’s part, about why bread nourishes?  Say, about why the law of the conservation of energy holds?  The argument: No matter how much we learn, the problem will apply to that knowledge as well.  Is the problem just lack of knowledge?  Say, on Hume’s part, about why bread nourishes?  Say, about why the law of the conservation of energy holds?  The argument: No matter how much we learn, the problem will apply to that knowledge as well.

11 Can evolutionary theory help?  Induction assumes that the universe contains “kinds” and causation  It also assumes the uniformity of nature  Reasoning this way is useful because it underlies predictions.  Other species also use induction.  Is it possible that the capacity and/or disposition is the product of natural selection?  Induction assumes that the universe contains “kinds” and causation  It also assumes the uniformity of nature  Reasoning this way is useful because it underlies predictions.  Other species also use induction.  Is it possible that the capacity and/or disposition is the product of natural selection?

12 Can evolutionary theory help?  Is it possible that the capacity and/or disposition is the product of natural selection?  Yes and cognitive scientists maintain it likely is.  If this is the case, does it justify induction?  No: the problem remains.  And the past success of induction does not guarantee its success in the future.  Is it possible that the capacity and/or disposition is the product of natural selection?  Yes and cognitive scientists maintain it likely is.  If this is the case, does it justify induction?  No: the problem remains.  And the past success of induction does not guarantee its success in the future.


Download ppt "Science and induction  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google