I think Hume's point was to show the arbitrariness in our propensity to draw generalization. The words "habit" and "custom" are his words. Why does he use those words? What is he trying to convey?I would say he draws the generalization from particular instances that people habitually draw generalizations from particular instances. He's just pointing out how we usually call that process, "custom" or "habit". That doesn't mean we can't agree with his observation that this seems to be what people do in general. — leo
Granted, but doesn't Hume have his reason why he calls the propensity a "habit" when he could have just stuck with the word "propensity"?but he does say that this principle is just a name we use for the propensity we have to draw inferences from particular instances, he doesn't say this principle is the cause of that propensity. — leo
I think there two propositions here regarding induction:But even if he were inconsistent on that point and really used induction to conclude that Custom is a universal principle, that wouldn't show that there is no problem of induction, — leo
I agree that induction can't be justified using deduction, — Purple Pond
What I find odd is that right after Hume talks about how induction is unjustified — Purple Pond
From what I see, it's not only that Hume uses induction when he argues that induction is unjustified, — Purple Pond
Hume is using induction as if it were a perfectly fine method to show that, after all, it's a rather arbitrary method (habit, custom). — Purple Pond
My reading of Hume gives me the impression that he denies that there's any kind of justification of induction. What kind of justification do you have in mind that he would approve of?And that is the only kind of justification which Hume is seeking to deny to induction. — bongo fury
Hume may believe that induction is efficacious, however that doesn't excuse him from coughing up justification in order to persuade others. Put it this way, how is he supposed to convince me of his inductive conclusion is accurate when he puts serious doubts on the very process of induction?but you can't say he is inconsistent. Quite the opposite. He is probably reaching these claims through the exercise of precisely those habits of mind that he ends up claiming to be efficacious (though fallible) for such a purpose. — bongo fury
He approves of it in the sense that when he stops philosophizing he forgets all his skeptical doubts and goes on with his day. It doesn't mean that he thinks that there is any rational reason why induction will continue to work.Nope! He approves of it. — bongo fury
I specifically mentioned his words, "custom", and "habit". To me it makes it seem like Hume is implying that our inductions are quite arbitrary. You say, "depends on experience" but for Hume there is no warrant for extrapolating beyond what we observe and remember. If you say that he does warrant such things, I'm dying to know what his warrant is.Nope! Not arbitrary, depends on experience. — bongo fury
What kind of justification do you have in mind that he would approve of? — Purple Pond
Hume may believe that induction is efficacious, however that doesn't excuse him from coughing up justification in order to persuade others. — Purple Pond
Put it this way, how is he supposed to convince me his inductive conclusion is accurate when he puts serious doubts on the very process of induction? — Purple Pond
He approves of it in the sense that when he stops philosophizing he forgets all his skeptical doubts and goes on with his day. — Purple Pond
It doesn't mean that he thinks that there is any rational reason why induction will continue to work. — Purple Pond
I specifically mentioned his words, "custom", and "habit". To me it makes it seem like Hume is implying that our inductions are quite arbitrary. — Purple Pond
... for Hume there is no warrant for extrapolating beyond what we observe and remember. — Purple Pond
If you say that he does warrant such things, I'm dying to know what kind of warrant he approves of. — Purple Pond
Yet he has not, by all his experience, acquired any idea or knowledge of the secret power by which the one object produces the other; nor is it, by any process of reasoning, he is engaged to draw this inference. (Hume) — Purple Pond
For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom. (Hume) — Purple Pond
By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. — Purple Pond
What warrant gives Hume the right generalize that all humans and animals possess this induction instinct, past, present, and future? — Purple Pond
So I ask: do philosophers agree that Hume is inconsistent in his Enquiry? if not, how do you explain away Hume's supposed inconsistency? — Purple Pond
You mean the habit of the mind to associate two or more things that are constantly conjoined, justifies our belief that they will be constantly conjoined in the future? Why? It's not obvious that our habits of association in the past are relevant to what will happen in the future. Am I missing some point?Habit, custom. — bongo fury
Because mine and Hume's personal beliefs about the efficacy of induction are not of any importance in this discussion. We're here to consider arguments not personal beliefs. The point is that Hume needs to provide justification for his use of induction irrespective of his or my personal beliefs about induction.Why not? Do you not advocate science, on the grounds of its success? — bongo fury
But what's left? You say habits and customs, but first I need you to explain exactly how they justify our use of induction.He doesn't put doubts on the process. Like I said, he only wants to recommend that you give up the futile search for a justification in deduction. — bongo fury
You mean lend probable support? You would then have to assign probabilities to events. How do you do that without assuming that the past will be like the future?Yes, it does. Just not a guarantee. — bongo fury
I think Hume's point was to show the arbitrariness in our propensity to draw generalization. The words "habit" and "custom" are his words. Why does he use those words? What is he trying to convey? — Purple Pond
It seems like there's no justification for his conclusion that we all have that propensity. I see no reason to agree with him. — Purple Pond
I think there two propositions here regarding induction:
1. The use of induction cannot be justified. (Logical claim.)
2. Our use of induction is based on something arbitrary such as a habit, or a custom. (Empirical claim.)
I do agree that first proposition is really a problem. However I don't see how the second one can really be demonstrated. — Purple Pond
You mean the habit of the mind to associate two or more things that are constantly conjoined, justifies our belief that they will be constantly conjoined in the future? — Purple Pond
Why? — Purple Pond
It's not obvious that our habits of association in the past are relevant to what will happen in the future. — Purple Pond
Am I missing some point? — Purple Pond
mine and Hume's personal beliefs about the efficacy of induction are not of any importance in this discussion. We're here to consider arguments not personal beliefs. — Purple Pond
The point is that Hume needs to provide justification for his use of induction — Purple Pond
But what's left? You say habits and customs, but first I need you to explain exactly how they justify our use of induction. — Purple Pond
Yes, it does. Just not a guarantee.
— bongo fury
You mean lend probable support? — Purple Pond
You would then have to assign probabilities to events. How do you do that without assuming that the past will be like the future? — Purple Pond
To cut a long story short, in my opinion, Hume makes sense by supporting falsificationism because Pavlov's dog does that too. — alcontali
But which, if it is so framed, will - as I think you are rightly pointing out - imply a universal hypothesis about the appropriateness of a particular statistical or probabilistic framework. — bongo fury
What I find odd is that right after Hume talks about how induction is unjustified he seems to go on and use it. — Purple Pond
An interesting tidbit: If you think about it, there's only one way for nature to be uniform, and infinite ways it can vary. — Purple Pond
I guess an alternative is to do nothing and wait for the uniformity of nature to cease. — Purple Pond
Hume says we use induction because we are compelled to use it by our very nature, and not because there is no other method.Isn't he saying that, although induction is unjustified and unjustifiable, we use it anyway because we have no choice? — Pattern-chaser
When there's nothing better available, we use induction, Occam's Razor, and all manner of other rules of thumb (guesswork). Is there an alternative? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
The problem with that is, according to Hume, there's no reason to think that induction, or any other rules of thumb, would be better, for example, than consulting a psychic, or any other attempt to predict the future. — Purple Pond
The grammatical interpretation is that induction is defined directly in terms of observed repetition. In which case, 'induction is habit' is a deflationist assertion, i.e an analytic a priori definition of induction without empirical implications... — sime
From what I see, it's not only that Hume uses induction when he argues that induction is unjustified, Hume goes on to use induction pointing out evidence that our use of induction is on shaky ground (habit, custom). — Purple Pond
Please read this again. And again.Yet he has not, by all his experience, acquired any idea or knowledge of the secret power by which the one object produces the other; nor is it, by any process of reasoning, he is engaged to draw this inference. But still he finds himself determined to draw it: And though he should be convinced that his understanding has no part in the operation, he would nevertheless continue in the same course of thinking. There is some other principle which determines him to form such a conclusion. — Hume
36. This principle is Custom or Habit. - Hume. — Purple Pond
Or as we call it these days "conditioning." — unenlightened
Pavlov's dog does not reason — unenlightened
It is the foundation of learning, but has no logical basis — unenlightened
You cannot derive a 'will be' from a 'has been'. — unenlightened
For some reason people who are happy to assent to the former often have difficulty with the latter. — unenlightened
or induction, of course. — bongo fury
Indeed, but giving it another name does not give it a justification. Do you think you have done that? Or that someone else has? — unenlightened
I find it hard to believe that Hume's inconsistency with respect to his use of induction would go unnoticed by major philosophers. So I ask: do philosophers agree that Hume is inconsistent in his Enquiry? if not, how do you explain away Hume's supposed inconsistency? — Purple Pond
He proposes habit/custom as one but, from your post, never claims that it's the only explanation for it. — TheMadFool
By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. — Hume, 36.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.