Response to Hume’s Problem of Induction
Here is an overview of what Russell, Reichenbach, and Popper had to say about the inductive method
We depend on the law of induction to make predictions about the future, pertaining both to science and to daily life.
The Problem of Induction poses a threat to all empirical and scientific knowledge. Since all scientific laws are inductive generalizations based on the (assumed) principle of uniformity of nature, questioning the viability of induction brings them into question too.
Hume has been credited with introducing the Problem of Induction. He tried to find ways of justifying it, but he admitted failure. A number of influential philosophers after him, like Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, Reichenbach, and Popper tried approaching the problem in their own insightful ways, but it largely remains unsolved.
Read David Hume on the Problem of Induction to understand the context.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)
About Russell
A British philosopher, logician, and social critic, Bertrand Russell made significant contributions to the fields of mathematical logic, ethics, and analytic philosophy.
On the Problem of Induction
Russell was in support of the inductivist view. If we deny the principle of induction, then all our attempts of discovering scientific laws from particular instances would become fallacious.
Even though he acknowledges that Hume’s skepticism seems inescapable for an empiricist, Russell does not adopt the same attitude towards induction, which he justifies by appealing to experience (which is what induction is entirely rooted in, he said).
He presents intrinsic evidence as the only grounds on which the inductive method can be accepted (or otherwise, there is no justification for it at all), and that it is not capable of being disapproved by an appeal to experience (in which it is rooted). Such an appeal would neither give us a reason to believe or disbelieve its applicability, and should itself be a reason to accept the law of induction. Because if we appeal to our experience to justify the principle of induction, we would be using the inductive principle to justify the law of induction (which means we are already assuming the law of induction to be true, hence making this argument fallacious).
For the validity of arguments based on experience, it is necessary that we accept induction.
Takeaway
Russell believed that experience has intrinsic worth and hence induction can be considered a valid method for the acquisition of knowledge. If the intrinsic worth of an experience is very close to absolute certainty, then it should be accepted as knowledge.
Hans Reichenbach (1891–1953)
About Reichenbach
The German philosopher Reichenbach is best known for his contributions to the philosophy of science as a logical positivist, and for his role as the founder of the Berlin Circle. He is popularly considered to be the ‘greatest empiricist of the 20th century’.
On the Problem of Induction
Reichenbach believed that the problem of induction is not one that can be solved through the use of logic or by clarifying linguistic confusion. His approach at attempting to clear the problem of induction was unique because he (tried to) use the deductive method to justify the law of induction.
He pointed out how the problem raised by Hume was bound by an impossible condition (of seeking a deductive proof for induction).
While he acknowledged Hume’s success in eliminating the validity of induction, he also claimed that the same can be vindicated.
The Principle of Vindication: As a justification, this gives us the best possible solution to ‘vindicate’ induction as the best guide to science and the discovery of scientific laws.
From this, induction seems to be our best bet (and also the most reasonable one) for arriving at knowledge. We have everything (knowledge, that is) to gain, and nothing to lose by believing in the inductive method. He said that if induction fails, then no other method could possibly succeed. This was his basis for the vindication of the inductive method as the guide to science.
This approach has been viewed to be a promising one to the problem of induction.
Takeaway
Reichenbach said that Hume tried to find deductive certainty in induction, which is a useless, absurd endeavor. Calling it our best bet to getting knowledge, Reichenbach believed induction to be the pragmatic way of moving ahead.
Karl Popper (1902–1994)
About Popper
Perhaps one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, Austrian-British Karl Popper is also known for his contributions to the fields of social and political philosophy. Influential philosophers Lakatos and Feyerabend were two of his students.
On the Problem of Induction
In his Conjectures and Refutations, Popper had a very different take on this problem. He believed that science does not depend on induction. He denies the general belief that scientists start off with observations and then infer general propositions as theories. Instead, they propose a tentative thesis and then compare its predictions with observations to test its worth.
Therefore, the problem of induction as posed by Hume does not affect science at all, as science uses deduction and abduction.
Takeaway
Popper believed that the problem of induction does not affect science at all. Contrary to the accepted belief that induction is the beginning of scientific theories, Popper suggested it to be hypothesization instead. Conjecture or assumption of true events is the first step in formulating scientific theories, and not induction (which has no place in science).
