more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 2202
[filed under theme 14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
]
Full Idea
It is certain that the most ignorant and stupid peasants - nay infants, nay even brute beasts - improve by experience.
Clarification
Examples to show that induction is not rational
Gist of Idea
Fools, children and animals all learn from experience
Source
David Hume (Enquiry Conc Human Understanding [1748], IV.II.33)
Book Ref
Hume,David: 'Enquiries Conc. Human Understanding, Morals', ed/tr. Selby-Bigge/Nidditch [OUP 1975], p.39
The
32 ideas
with the same theme
[why induction cannot justify generalised truths]:
12293
|
We say 'so in cases of this kind', but how do you decide what is 'of this kind'?
[Aristotle]
|
6027
|
From the fact that some men die, we cannot infer that they all do
[Philodemus]
|
1886
|
If you don't view every particular, you may miss the one which disproves your universal induction
[Sext.Empiricus]
|
5053
|
The instances confirming a general truth are never enough to establish its necessity
[Leibniz]
|
2199
|
Reason cannot show why reliable past experience should extend to future times and remote places
[Hume]
|
2201
|
Induction can't prove that the future will be like the past, since induction assumes this
[Hume]
|
2202
|
Fools, children and animals all learn from experience
[Hume]
|
2203
|
If we infer causes from repetition, this explains why we infer from a thousand objects what we couldn't infer from one
[Hume]
|
2204
|
All inferences from experience are effects of custom, not reasoning
[Hume]
|
19236
|
Induction can never prove that laws have no exceptions
[Peirce]
|
19235
|
How does induction get started?
[Peirce]
|
19251
|
The worst fallacy in induction is generalising one recondite property from a sample
[Peirce]
|
22654
|
We can't know if the laws of nature are stable, but we must postulate it or assume it
[James]
|
5390
|
Chickens are not very good at induction, and are surprised when their feeder wrings their neck
[Russell]
|
5392
|
It doesn't follow that because the future has always resembled the past, that it always will
[Russell]
|
5394
|
We can't prove induction from experience without begging the question
[Russell]
|
5191
|
We can't use the uniformity of nature to prove induction, as that would be circular
[Ayer]
|
7779
|
There is no such thing as induction
[Popper, by Magee]
|
17685
|
Induction aims at 'all Fs', but abduction aims at hidden or theoretical entities
[Armstrong]
|
13607
|
If events are unconnected, then induction cannot be solved
[Ellis]
|
6952
|
Induction is 'defeasible', since additional information can invalidate it
[Harman]
|
15255
|
Conjunctions explain nothing, and so do not give a reason for confidence in inductions
[Harré/Madden]
|
15270
|
Hume's atomic events makes properties independent, and leads to problems with induction
[Harré/Madden]
|
16823
|
Standard induction does not allow for vertical inferences, to some unobservable lower level
[Lipton]
|
15713
|
The first million numbers confirm that no number is greater than a million
[Kaplan/Kaplan]
|
15694
|
Children overestimate the power of a single example
[Gelman]
|
15695
|
Children make errors in induction by focusing too much on categories
[Gelman]
|
6790
|
Anything justifying inferences from observed to unobserved must itself do that
[Bird]
|
6791
|
If Hume is right about induction, there is no scientific knowledge
[Bird]
|
19668
|
Hume's question is whether experimental science will still be valid tomorrow
[Meillassoux]
|
7295
|
Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable
[Mitchell,A]
|
14570
|
Nature is not completely uniform, and some regular causes sometimes fail to produce their effects
[Mumford/Anjum]
|