I'm not trained in philosophy, and what I read from this was directly from wikipedia:
>In inductive reasoning, one makes a series of observations and infers a new claim based on them. For instance, from a series of observations that a woman walks her dog by the market at 8am on Monday, it seems valid to infer that next Monday she will do the same, or that, in general, the woman walks her dog by the market every Monday. That next Monday the woman walks by the market merely adds to the series of observations, it does not prove she will walk by the market every Monday. First of all, it is not certain, regardless of the number of observations, that the woman always walks by the market at 8am on Monday. In fact, Hume would even argue that we cannot claim it is "more probable", since this still requires the assumption that the past predicts the future. Second, the observations themselves do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except inductively.
Regarding this example, what do you call the fact that a person making a guess about the women walking her dog every monday ends up being right about 95% of the time? Hume says it can't be more probable, yet by that person's observation alone it actually turned out to be probable that she would walk her dog every monday until the woman's dog died. Is it called 'luck'?
Hume wasn't a statistician, he didn't understand how well we can model reality and predict things.
Philosophically arguing against facts is pointless. I'm sure some anon here can give a metaphysical argument for why gravity isn't real
If it happens that you flip a coin every day, and by some stroke of chance, it has turned up heads every time you flipped it before, that doesn't mean tails is less likely on the next flip. The actual chance is independent of observed chance.
Don't know what you mean by 2^d but what I'm trying to add here is that you're working with an initial premise, and at that point -in the present- you would be right to say that we cannot know, but suppose an idiot would have said that he never would have gotten tails because he never got tails before, and then on he ends up not getting tails ever and the idiot was correct, and this was based on his observation.
Something I would like to say is that casuality would be the IRL exmaple of this.
Everything has been found to have a cause thus far.
Deductive reasoning based on a logically certain conclusion
Inductive reasoning can only ever at most be based on something being highly probable
In the simplest terms:
1+1=2 is deductive
The sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen every other day is inductive
>what do you call the fact that a person making a guess about the women walking her dog every monday ends up being right about 95% of the time?
that you live in the past in order to live in the future, therefore that you are a nihilist
>In fact, Hume would even argue that we cannot claim it is "more probable", since this still requires the assumption that the past predicts the future.
> the assumption that the past predicts the future.
What is wrong with making that assumption?
It's just as probable that a coin will land heads up everytime in a sequence of flips as any other sequence of heads or tails
Assuming a fair coin, and the last 5 flips returning heads, what is the probability of the next flip being heads?
Yea, I mean I'm just fucking with you.
>Regarding this example, what do you call the fact that a person making a guess about the women walking her dog every monday ends up being right about 95% of the time?
Meaningless, since it doesn't allow you to accurately predict the future.
You could be 100% right and that would still not be a guarantee that it will happen in the future
Congrats for understanding literally none of Hume's argument.
You are not alone though. To this day fuckers still think that Hume was a skeptic. He wasn't. The "problem" of induction is Hume demonstrating that humans are non-rational. It directly paved the way for Kant's discovery of the unconscious and psychology as a discipline in itself.
being a retard and not understanding anything doesn't let you dismiss hume
he's basically saying you need to run some experiment to figure out the cause, that pure observation tells you nothing about the cause
the error in reasoning is assuming day has anything to do with it. everything about this causal chain is the woman's sentiments and motivations, but you're assuming that's what those are. an actual experiment would involve questioning her and seeing if that's what she wants to do.
that's the argument that draws more attention around Hume.
The complete argument was that he wanted to emphasise that laws of nature, as exclaimed by man, should only be translated in the world of ideas, which is permanent, because the sensory world is subjective and can deceive us.
It was on this prinicple that Reason of the Enlightenment found a philosophical pillar, besides the political. Hume became the philospher of the Enlightenment's superstructure.
I read about him here: