Inductive reasoning is a kind of reasoning that allows us to conclude general things from particular observations. For example, if we know that it has always been the case that when throwing a ball it falls, then by induction we could conclude that the ball will fall every time we throw it.
It is important to note that although this kind of reasoning seems to make sense, it is not logically sound: the fact that something has always happened up to now does not mean that it will continue to happen. Let's take a simple example: my computer has never exploded when I turn it on, then by induction I could assume that it will not explode the next time I turn it on; however, this conclusion is not necessarily true - an electrical fault could cause my computer to explode the next time I turn it on even though this has never happened.
Although the induction is not logically sound, we use it all the time: I assume that my computer will not explode the next time I turn it on, I assume that if a car runs over me I will be hurt, I assume that eating a fist of Habaneros will have terrible results , etc. Certainly, not trusting the induction would lead us to acquire quite strange habits (maybe I would have to put on an anti-bomb suit to use my computer!). Furthermore, induction has proven to be an extremely powerful tool for scientific development. It is difficult to imagine a world where scientists will not apply inductive reasoning to propose hypotheses and develop theories.
Induction is clearly a very useful form of reasoning, but is it possible to rationally justify the confidence that most of us have?
Well according to David Hume, it seems that nel, cake.
The Scottish philosopher came to this controversial conclusion after noting that whenever we make inductive inferences, we seem to assume what he calls the "Uniformity of Nature." In other words, we seem to assume that natural phenomena behave uniformly
But how can we know if the UN is true? It is perfectly possible to imagine a universe where things behave randomly, which is why it is strictly impossible to prove that the UN is true. But could we at least gather empirical evidence to support it? One might be tempted to say that the fact of the UN has been true so far is sufficient reason to assume that it is true in general, but this is an inductive reasoning which in turn depends on the UN! An argument that assumes a proposition A can not be used to prove that A is true. Trying to prove the UN through experimentation leads us to reason in circles.
So we have that the induction needs the UN, but we can not prove that this is true or gather evidence in its favor without reasoning in circles. Our inductive inferences are based on an assumption about the world over which we have no rational justification; therefore, Hume concludes that our confidence in induction is a matter of faith.
Faith in the heart of science? That is a conclusion with which I never thought I could agree.
