Problem of Induction as Analyzed by Hume

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The Problem of Induction
While trying to alleviate the misconception surrounding the existence of substance, Hume suggests there are two sources of knowledge. First, some ideas or statements are inherently and intuitively certain and are independent of experience. Trying to disprove or deny them would inevitably create a contradiction. According to Hume, this category of reasoning is known as relations of ideas (18). They can be discovered by mere operation of thought and do not add much meaning to human life. On the flip side, there is the second category, known as matters of fact. Unlike relations of ideas, it is impossible to ascertain the evidence of the truth of these objects of reasoning by operation of thought. This object of reason paves the way for dispute since the contrary of every matter of fact is a possibility. For instance, someone may observe that it will rain tomorrow. Before even wondering why that person thinks so, others could argue on the contrary by claiming there will be sunshine without creating a contradiction. In this regard, Hume suggests that this shows matters of fact bear no certainty and depend to a large extent on the relation between cause and effect (Hume 19). For example, the person claiming it will rain tomorrow could base their argument on the prevailing weather. Dark clouds and high temperatures could indicate the possibility of rain in the foreseeable future. In a nutshell, matters of fact deal with past experiences. I find Hume’s suggestion that people can only make inferences from the process of cause and effect based on experience valid, despite there being no form of reasoning that can justify the concept.
Analysis of the Problem of Induction
However controversial the concept of cause and effect based on experience is, Hume contends that endeavors to make inferences through any other means would be faulty and misleading. If anything, it would only suffice to cover our natural ignorance (Hume 21). To give heft to his argument, Hume poses the question as to which process the mind would proceed through if someone was presented with an object and was required to pronounce the effect that would result from it. He places this situation in the context of not having the advantage of consulting past observations. Hume contends that in such a situation, the mind would have to arbitrarily invent or imagine an event and ascribe it as the effect. This is because no amount of accurate scrutiny and examination can facilitate the mind to find an effect in the supposed cause. Hume’s arguments hold some modicum of truth because without having reference, it would be practically impossible to foretell the effect of an object. Trying to do so would only occasion more problems than answers.
However, he presents no concrete way of consolidating his position, which creates more space for contradiction. One of the contradictions Hume's approach yields is when he opines that some matters of fact can be refuted without causing contradiction (Hume 19). To many keen observers, they may strike them as illogical. If, for instance, someone claims that it is raining while, in actual fact, the sun is shining, is that not a contradiction? Evidently, this makes one wonder why he intimated that one could refute matters of fact without necessarily being contradictory. Most probably, he wanted to emphasize that we have to make reference to the world around us to make verifications concerning matters of fact. The positive thing is that he acknowledges this weak link and challenges anyone with a concrete solution to step forward.
Hume’s Arguments
The concept of cause and effect in making human inferences continues to generate heated debate. As a matter of fact, the more one digs deeper into trying to comprehend it, the more confusing it becomes. Even Hume, at some point, admits failure by not coming up with a theory that conclusively explains the concept (Hume 24). For instance, he finds basing our knowledge on future events wanting because we have no metrics to measure how well past events can guide us to make future predictions. In light of this, Hume confesses no form of reasoning can confirm inferences based on the similarities between the past and the future. This is because doing so entirely depends on assumptions, which could be misleading because they are subject to change.
Even though we might not stumble upon a concrete solution regarding why we should base our inferences on experience, Hume argues it is incumbent upon us to explain and defend it. We might be at a disadvantage, though, because nature has kept us at a great distance from her secrets and only allows us access to the knowledge of a few exterior qualities of objects (Hume 24). In essence, it hides from us the powers and principles that influence how those objects act. For instance, we can use our senses to describe the weight and size of bread but cannot reasonably explain the qualities that make the bread fit for nourishing the human body. However, we use the power of induction to presume that objects with similar sensible qualities will have similar secret powers that will produce effects like the ones we have experienced before. This indicates that we can reasonably rely on experience for direct and particul...