Explain Hume's problem of induction in terms of its relation to counter-induction?

Answer 1

In relation to Matts answer:

"When a man says, "I have found, in all past instances, such sensible qualities conjoined with such secret powers," and when he says, "Similar sensible qualities will always be conjoined with similar secret powers," he is not guilty of a tautology, nor are these propositions in any respect the same. You say that the one proposition is an inference from the other. But you must confess that the inference is not intuitive, neither is it demonstrative. Of what nature is it, then? To say it is experimental, is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future. all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/hume.htm

In relation to the meanings for the expression 'induction' and 'counter-induction', I am not certain of their application to Humes understanding.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/induction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Perhaps the uncertainty is a lacking or absent foundation in constant principle logic and physic.

Answer 2

no longer indoors the least unsettling. technological wisdom practiced exact is wakeful that jointly as inference usually works, circumstances will ensue jointly because it does no longer paintings. in many circumstances meaning that what we evaluate "stated" ought to truthfully incorporate unobservables. So PF isn't a crutch for technological wisdom, basically a device for use with care and skepticism. there's a whiff of sophistry in Hume's argument as offered above, of utilising overdefined, narrow sturdy judgment to portray technological wisdom as portray itself top right into a (nonexistent) corner. a lots wider philosophy has room for the utilitarian argument; if it quite works on occasion, attempt it and observe if it is going to paintings decrease back, yet do no longer wager your paycheck on it.

Answer 3

How can we be sure that the future will resemble the past? That's it.