|
|
Post by humelover on Oct 18, 2020 11:31:26 GMT
Hey guys,
Currently I am studying Hume's sceptical argument. I think his view on induction is quite interesting. While thinking on and writing about Hume's argument and perspective, I was wondering about the validity and soundness of the sceptical argument that he proposes.
I think his sceptical argument should be something like this:
1. You don't get knowledge of the empirical unobserved by reason or by observation. For example, I cannot tell that the sun will rise tomorrow by thinking about it, and by looking at it.
2. Causal inference will be the only way which will give you this knowledge.
3. To gain knowledge with the use of causal inference, we have to know causal relations.
4. Causal relations could not be known by observation and reason.
5. You can't get knowledge of things that are empirical unobserved
Conclusion: its not possible for us to gain or obtain knowledge about anything that goes beyond our senses, memory and testimony.
The thing I am struggling with is if this argument is valid and sound. Obviously, in Philosophy, an argument is valid if it's not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An argument is sound if the argument is valid and the premises are all true.
What do you think? Is Hume's sceptical argument valid? And is it sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 18, 2020 12:02:14 GMT
Hey guys, Currently I am studying Hume's sceptical argument. I think his view on induction is quite interesting. While thinking on and writing about Hume's argument and perspective, I was wondering about the validity and soundness of the sceptical argument that he proposes. I think his sceptical argument should be something like this: 1. You don't get knowledge of the empirical unobserved by reason or by observation. For example, I cannot tell that the sun will rise tomorrow by thinking about it, and by looking at it. 2. Causal inference will be the only way which will give you this knowledge. 3. To gain knowledge with the use of causal inference, we have to know causal relations. 4. Causal relations could not be known by observation and reason. 5. You can't get knowledge of things that are empirical unobserved Conclusion: its not possible for us to gain or obtain knowledge about anything that goes beyond our senses, memory and testimony. The thing I am struggling with is if this argument is valid and sound. Obviously, in Philosophy, an argument is valid if it's not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An argument is sound if the argument is valid and the premises are all true. What do you think? Is Hume's sceptical argument valid? And is it sound?
The distinction lacking in this argument is the one between external observation and introspection. If I sense that I have some level of free will, then that is an introspective observation. It's not something I could know by observing the external world.
When we apply the empirical induction principle, we presume something we can't prove; That there is order in the universe, so that when we conduct experiment A and get outcome B, then for every time we repeat the experiment with the same result, we become more convinced that the outcome will persistently be the same next time. This can't be deduced from observation itself. If we make the argument that the induction principle is true because we have applied it with success in the past, we're simply using the induction principle to prove the induction principle. We believe in it because we hold it as self-evidently true. Our conviction is introspective.
This is fundamentally different from convictions based on external observation. For example, believing that gravity will not be switched off tomorrow is ultimately based on observation leading to the formation of gravitational theory, and can only be asserted as true with high probability. -A probability based on observations consistent with that gravity has existed since the dawn of time. But there is no way to 100% rule out that gravity could be switched off at any moment. The conviction that the induction principle is true is introspective. And no observation could ever dissuade us from believing that it's true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 18, 2020 13:53:31 GMT
5th is problematic.
To 1st, there's perhaps a supposition:
1a. Reason and observation are the only which allow us doing that.
So, in turn, 1a is built upon speculations.
To conclusion and validity: If it's possible that we might receive knowledge in some other ways, let's say a crazy scientist load knowledge into our minds with it, then the argument is not valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Oct 18, 2020 18:49:02 GMT
Where did #2 come from? This is not Hume's position. Hume's point is that induction itself cannot be proven. I agree, induction is axiomatic, wired into the human brain but sometimes overridden by philosophical insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 18, 2020 19:22:41 GMT
Just to clarify. While the induction principle itself is self-evident, whenever it's applied, such as in the given example with gravity, it may only produce probabilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2020 10:26:10 GMT
Hey guys, Currently I am studying Hume's sceptical argument. I think his view on induction is quite interesting. While thinking on and writing about Hume's argument and perspective, I was wondering about the validity and soundness of the sceptical argument that he proposes. I think his sceptical argument should be something like this: 1. You don't get knowledge of the empirical unobserved by reason or by observation. For example, I cannot tell that the sun will rise tomorrow by thinking about it, and by looking at it. 2. Causal inference will be the only way which will give you this knowledge. 3. To gain knowledge with the use of causal inference, we have to know causal relations. 4. Causal relations could not be known by observation and reason. 5. You can't get knowledge of things that are empirical unobserved Conclusion: its not possible for us to gain or obtain knowledge about anything that goes beyond our senses, memory and testimony. The thing I am struggling with is if this argument is valid and sound. Obviously, in Philosophy, an argument is valid if it's not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An argument is sound if the argument is valid and the premises are all true. What do you think? Is Hume's sceptical argument valid? And is it sound? 4. Causal relations could not be known by observation and reason. huh? Knowledge not derived from reason?
Try and avoid philosophical semantic sophistry, even if its popular in academia to do this. Think in your own words and terms that are universal.
|
|
