Hey Mr. Greco, thanks for this video. I study Hume at the moment for class and it's very helpful. I just thought about something: in your example about black hair, don't you also make an argument relying on induction, since you're saying there's a good chance your haire won't be black based on the knowledge or you parents and great-grandparents - isn't that also inductive reasoning?
Reducing a particular conclusion to a single problem of induction is NOT how we think. We actually use abduction, not induction, which is fundamentally similar to induction, but utilizes the inferred probabilistic answers to many interrelated questions, which taken together provide the most likely outcome. Bayesian logic can potentially impose a more quantitative rigor to this process. It MIGHT provide better answers than "intuition" (that's Bayesian logic without the math). It depends on the circumstances. Humans are famously inept at certain statistical predictions... but "intuition" can be useful where reducing a complex problem to a set of discrete probabilities is not feasible. When interpreting past events that we cannot directly observe, as we do in geology (That's me.), we can use abductive reasoning as a way of "inference to the best explanation". Ideally, multiple possible explanations should be considered, and the derived conclusion is the one that's interpreted to be the most likely. (Occam's Razor can also be invoked to provide a gentle nudge toward the simpler of competing explanations). In the case of future events, we can think of abduction as "inference to the best prediction".
A priori truths are logically certain to be true. Everything else is uncertain to be true outside of the context in which it appears to be true or is taken to be true. The Problem of Induction is simply a name given to what Parmenides already pointed out more than 2 thousand years earlier in regards to pure reason (Relation of Ideas) and appearances (Matters of Fact). Parmenides pointed out that only pure reason can arrive at truths (knowledge that is logically certain to be true). Knowledge that relies upon appearances and empirical evidence can never be logically certain to be true outside of the context they are deemed to be true.
@@thatchinaboi1yeah pretty much all of modern philosophy was said already by the ancients. Descartes and Kant were the only moderns who were original because of their weird versions of dualism and transcendental idealism, but they are sorta incoherent. All the others we hype up were said better and more succinctly by the ancients Eleatics and Plato/Aristotle
I like what one of Hume's character says in response to a skeptic in his book "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". When Cleanthes interpretes Philo's position as to doubt everything he get's a little upset and asks whether Philo will exit through the window at the end of their discourse. "Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: We shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt, if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience." - David Hume
Good video but aren't you using inductive reasoning yourself at 2:07. Your reasoning is as follows. Every humans hair so far has become gray when they age, so my hair must become gray when I age as well. Now of course this inductive argument sound a lot more reasonable then the no hair color change argument, as we've confirmed it ourselves multiple times. But still it doesn't necessarily have to mean your hair will become gray because of the nature of inductive arguments.
great video i'm using it revise for a final tomorrow but, still i would like to see more of this!. most philosophy channels mention biographical information on philosophers but, they rarely touch on epistemology.
This video was so helpful, thank you! You are so well-spoken, the examples were simple enough for me to understand, and the video is very well made overall so please keep up the good work!!
Mmm. Scientific laws, like gravity, aren’t just empirical observations. They do have a logical back up e.g. a mathematical interpretation of Newton’s Law which follows logically when you calculate results, and can be used to also give future predictions this way, rather than just using experience - for example, calculating the year Haley’s comet will pass by earth - which couldn’t be done by inductive reasoning of our experience of gravity alone. Of course, you could argue we don’t know anything we see, but I think the fact that nature follows logical mathematical laws which from a least a basis of logic (in a world where two plus two didn’t equal four -and we know deductively it does- Newton’s laws couldn’t work). This implies a connection between ‘the mere operation of thought’ and ‘matter of fact’, though you could never really know for sure I suppose.
I got lost at the last part with the magic 8-ball. If you asked the magic 8-ball the same question over and over, you would eventually get every single answer the 8-ball can provide. However, using induction, the answer will remain the same until the assumptions the induction is based on have changed. This would make induction superior by the nature of being based off of something that allows for scrutiny and discretion, which is the process of falsification that science is based off of. From this process of falsification we can eventually model reality after the least frequently wrong things, approaching a complete understanding. So what is being ignored or emphasized in the claim that reason is not a better tool than a magic 8-ball? I obviously missed something.
This is also a problem with it comes to falsifying theories. Since science assumes that the laws of nature are uniform, when we find contradictions we say "well, there has to be a deeper reality." But as we keep inventing deeper realities to create new scientific laws that consistently describe everything, we get a problem, are we really being scientific if we fail to abandon the uniformity of nature given new data?
If we are wired for inductive reasoning, and it is inherently irrational, then it seems that skepticism by way of seeking verification is still either relying on the induction of others or our ability to adapt and refine our perceptions (which may be constrained by our own cognitive limitations). What's the way out?
thanks for the video, though the magic eight ball and sea turtle examples i feel completely missed the boat on what hume is getting at... food for thought
I feel like since we have used the "it has happened in the past so it will happen in the future" argument before successfully, there is more basis to trust induction than a magic 8 ball, wouldn't this show that induction is still the "best" way determine what to do in the future?
Using induction, the "it has happened in the past so it will happen in the future" argument (aka induction) will always be better than the magic 8 ball
But if circular reasoning is suspect, we cannot rely on induction to validate anything perfectly. It leads to mysticism (something unexplainable) on its own. I trust the future will be like the past because, in the past, the future has always been like the past. And if you accept that as justified (JTB) and valid, then you'll have to accept all circular arguments as equally as valid. Sad state without any real foundation (without appealing to some other rescuing device) or valid reason.
Experience tells us that induction is reliable. If it occasionally fails, that's OK. Cars and appliances break down but I believe, based on induction, that neither will happen to me today. I believe my car will start and my fridge won't break down. Isaac Asimov had a good example: before Everest was summited, he predicted it soon would be because climbers kept getting closer and closer. He was right.
The outcome of the Magic 8 Ball is random. Whereas, the laws of gravity are based upon well-established, observable, predictable patterns. Induction isn’t perfect, but in cases like this, it is merely a method. A reliable method. The reliability of the Magic 8 Ball is its randomness.
anas kh I think that’s a good point. Such as, a philosopher could argue that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. But, based on induction, I’m not going to worry about that happening😉
And may I assume you have data to demonstrate that each of the following answers occurs 5% of the time? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with #16. 1. As I see it, yes. 2. Ask again later. 3. Better not tell you now. 4. Cannot predict now. 5. Concentrate and ask again. 6. Don’t count on it. 7. It is certain. 8. It is decidedly so. 9. Most likely. 10. My reply is no. 11. My sources say no. 12. Outlook not so good. 13. Outlook good. 14. Reply hazy, try again. 15. Signs point to yes. 16. Very doubtful. 17. Without a doubt. 18. Yes. 19. Yes - definitely. 20. You may rely on it.
Modern cognitive science thinks that our dreams have evolved for the role of simulating various scenarios ,including future events. That is one way of simulating future events even before future arrives!!! So, induction is possible using only relation of ideas in dreams. Eventually it might have become a habitual instinct though natural selection!!
"I can't think of any reason why this coin won't come up heads the next time it's tossed," the philosopher says, in respect to the coin that's been tossed a hundred trillion times and has always come up tails, "It's just sheer irrationality why everyone just keeps betting that it will keep coming up tails. What's wrong with all you people?"
You would assume your hair would continue to be black, unless you have knowledge otherwise. And knowledge of grey hair (and baldness) was obtained over time using induction, based on the experiences of your family, and everyone else.
How can you have induction (or the problem of induction) if you can't figure out what things are? This is where Hume fails... He creates his own metaphysics and then tries to refute metaphysics. Lol
My teacher asked me to watch this video and answer "When will the future not be the same as the past?" and I can't figure it out. My brain hurts, I can't form an answer from the vid. Edit: I'm just gonna say that the future is never the same as the past. This is for a DRAWING class. It's no big deal lol
Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where William Shatner and his fiance stop in a small town diner waiting for their car to get fixed, and encounter some magic genie machine that actually correctly predicts their future each time they ask it a question.
No. Tautologies are necessarily true. It is conceivable that the future not resemble the past. Not sure why you’re trying to say that the future and the past are the same thing, “Time”. They’re not.
But Dawkins still needs to explain his rational justification for induction. Otherwise it's just an appeal to irrational mysticism (something unexplainable). And if he leaves it to that, he probably needs to abandon rationality.
@@Yeomannn The burden of proof that sb has to do sth is on the one making the claim. I didn't think about induction for a long time, so let me try. We have convincing memories that induction has produced desirable results in the past, in particular in creating a model of reality that produces accurate predictions, so it makes sense to keep using induction as long as it keeps producing them.
You leave out the fact that predictions based on natural law (the sun rising, fire being hot) are supported by the enormous weight of history that says that never under any circumstances throughout our experience with campfires have cold campfire flames been observed. Whereas the Magic Eight Ball has (I assume) no significant history of being right. If the Magic Eight Ball had a history of being right on a par with our campfire flames being hot, then its predictions would have much more credibility, and I might have actually ended up marrying Karen Mae Lasky back in 3rd grade as her Magic Eight Ball stated.
Surely Hume’s skepticism was in reality significantly linked to his own cognitive dissonance for owning and benefitting from slaves and slavery. Hume, Locke, Kant et al were owners of slaves and supporters of this abhorrent practice and they had the audacity to espouse so called high moral societal standards. As an assistant ‘professor’ would it not be in your best interest to stop perpetuating Linnaeuss’ classification of the human species, therefore prolonging the deviant and outdated theory of race and racism. It’s not surprising that humanity has not ameliorated and moved forward positively when these abhorrent theories continue to be taught to future generations. Yet another Anglo Saxon philosopher espousing moral standards whilst dehumanising non Europeans. Would you continue to perpetuate the subjugation of women and the less abled Daniel? The hypocrisy of Eurocentric philosophical academia is astonishingly outdated, deviant and bereft of any true morality.
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vZtQXteAE-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Kant: On Metaphysical Knowledge [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Hume's Skepticism and Induction, Part 1 [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-QpUrSn3cWU/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Mr. Greco, thanks for this video. I study Hume at the moment for class and it's very helpful. I just thought about something: in your example about black hair, don't you also make an argument relying on induction, since you're saying there's a good chance your haire won't be black based on the knowledge or you parents and great-grandparents - isn't that also inductive reasoning?
Yes, that was the point. Both were inductive arguments, so he showed that we don't always take induction as the holy grail of truth..
Reducing a particular conclusion to a single problem of induction is NOT how we think. We actually use abduction, not induction, which is fundamentally similar to induction, but utilizes the inferred probabilistic answers to many interrelated questions, which taken together provide the most likely outcome. Bayesian logic can potentially impose a more quantitative rigor to this process. It MIGHT provide better answers than "intuition" (that's Bayesian logic without the math). It depends on the circumstances. Humans are famously inept at certain statistical predictions... but "intuition" can be useful where reducing a complex problem to a set of discrete probabilities is not feasible.
When interpreting past events that we cannot directly observe, as we do in geology (That's me.), we can use abductive reasoning as a way of "inference to the best explanation". Ideally, multiple possible explanations should be considered, and the derived conclusion is the one that's interpreted to be the most likely. (Occam's Razor can also be invoked to provide a gentle nudge toward the simpler of competing explanations).
In the case of future events, we can think of abduction as "inference to the best prediction".
A priori truths are logically certain to be true. Everything else is uncertain to be true outside of the context in which it appears to be true or is taken to be true. The Problem of Induction is simply a name given to what Parmenides already pointed out more than 2 thousand years earlier in regards to pure reason (Relation of Ideas) and appearances (Matters of Fact). Parmenides pointed out that only pure reason can arrive at truths (knowledge that is logically certain to be true). Knowledge that relies upon appearances and empirical evidence can never be logically certain to be true outside of the context they are deemed to be true.
@@thatchinaboi1yeah pretty much all of modern philosophy was said already by the ancients. Descartes and Kant were the only moderns who were original because of their weird versions of dualism and transcendental idealism, but they are sorta incoherent. All the others we hype up were said better and more succinctly by the ancients Eleatics and Plato/Aristotle
I like what one of Hume's character says in response to a skeptic in his book "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". When Cleanthes interpretes Philo's position as to doubt everything he get's a little upset and asks whether Philo will exit through the window at the end of their discourse.
"Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: We shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt, if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience." - David Hume
Good video but aren't you using inductive reasoning yourself at 2:07. Your reasoning is as follows. Every humans hair so far has become gray when they age, so my hair must become gray when I age as well. Now of course this inductive argument sound a lot more reasonable then the no hair color change argument, as we've confirmed it ourselves multiple times. But still it doesn't necessarily have to mean your hair will become gray because of the nature of inductive arguments.
Rekt
great video i'm using it revise for a final tomorrow but, still i would like to see more of this!. most philosophy channels mention biographical information on philosophers but, they rarely touch on epistemology.
You're lectures are clear and concise, Mr. Greco. Thank you.
Yes. Would love to hear the continuation of the discussion regarding Hume’s skepticism.
Thank you Mr Greco. This has been very helpful for my son’s revision.
This video was so helpful, thank you! You are so well-spoken, the examples were simple enough for me to understand, and the video is very well made overall so please keep up the good work!!
Why is argument at 5:55 wrong?
5 years and I see it now and find it useful and want to give ideas for videos in future for my study help..... 🪐
Thankyou soo much Mr.Greco..Ur videos helped a lot!
Mmm. Scientific laws, like gravity, aren’t just empirical observations. They do have a logical back up e.g. a mathematical interpretation of Newton’s Law which follows logically when you calculate results, and can be used to also give future predictions this way, rather than just using experience - for example, calculating the year Haley’s comet will pass by earth - which couldn’t be done by inductive reasoning of our experience of gravity alone.
Of course, you could argue we don’t know anything we see, but I think the fact that nature follows logical mathematical laws which from a least a basis of logic (in a world where two plus two didn’t equal four -and we know deductively it does- Newton’s laws couldn’t work). This implies a connection between ‘the mere operation of thought’ and ‘matter of fact’, though you could never really know for sure I suppose.
I got lost at the last part with the magic 8-ball. If you asked the magic 8-ball the same question over and over, you would eventually get every single answer the 8-ball can provide. However, using induction, the answer will remain the same until the assumptions the induction is based on have changed. This would make induction superior by the nature of being based off of something that allows for scrutiny and discretion, which is the process of falsification that science is based off of. From this process of falsification we can eventually model reality after the least frequently wrong things, approaching a complete understanding.
So what is being ignored or emphasized in the claim that reason is not a better tool than a magic 8-ball? I obviously missed something.
same here. i think the 8-ball example was a very very very poor choice
This is also a problem with it comes to falsifying theories. Since science assumes that the laws of nature are uniform, when we find contradictions we say "well, there has to be a deeper reality." But as we keep inventing deeper realities to create new scientific laws that consistently describe everything, we get a problem, are we really being scientific if we fail to abandon the uniformity of nature given new data?
Your visuals are great!!
What a great video and great channel. Thank you
complete and interesting. Very good
What is the app used for preparing these videos?
If we are wired for inductive reasoning, and it is inherently irrational, then it seems that skepticism by way of seeking verification is still either relying on the induction of others or our ability to adapt and refine our perceptions (which may be constrained by our own cognitive limitations). What's the way out?
thanks for the video, though the magic eight ball and sea turtle examples i feel completely missed the boat on what hume is getting at... food for thought
I feel like since we have used the "it has happened in the past so it will happen in the future" argument before successfully, there is more basis to trust induction than a magic 8 ball, wouldn't this show that induction is still the "best" way determine what to do in the future?
Using induction, the "it has happened in the past so it will happen in the future" argument (aka induction) will always be better than the magic 8 ball
But if circular reasoning is suspect, we cannot rely on induction to validate anything perfectly. It leads to mysticism (something unexplainable) on its own. I trust the future will be like the past because, in the past, the future has always been like the past. And if you accept that as justified (JTB) and valid, then you'll have to accept all circular arguments as equally as valid. Sad state without any real foundation (without appealing to some other rescuing device) or valid reason.
Experience tells us that induction is reliable. If it occasionally fails, that's OK. Cars and appliances break down but I believe, based on induction, that neither will happen to me today. I believe my car will start and my fridge won't break down. Isaac Asimov had a good example: before Everest was summited, he predicted it soon would be because climbers kept getting closer and closer. He was right.
What is the summary of this video?
As finite creatures,consequence is our director amidst prevailing conditions...
Sir could you talk about problems of scepticism
The outcome of the Magic 8 Ball is random. Whereas, the laws of gravity are based upon well-established, observable, predictable patterns. Induction isn’t perfect, but in cases like this, it is merely a method. A reliable method. The reliability of the Magic 8 Ball is its randomness.
anas kh I think that’s a good point. Such as, a philosopher could argue that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. But, based on induction, I’m not going to worry about that happening😉
And may I assume you have data to demonstrate that each of the following answers occurs 5% of the time? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with #16.
1. As I see it, yes.
2. Ask again later.
3. Better not tell you now.
4. Cannot predict now.
5. Concentrate and ask again.
6. Don’t count on it.
7. It is certain.
8. It is decidedly so.
9. Most likely.
10. My reply is no.
11. My sources say no.
12. Outlook not so good.
13. Outlook good.
14. Reply hazy, try again.
15. Signs point to yes.
16. Very doubtful.
17. Without a doubt.
18. Yes.
19. Yes - definitely.
20. You may rely on it.
Muito obrigado
3:10 But it will resemble the past, since your hair will turn grey, as it has done to (almost) all human in the past.
Omfg I think this is mindblowing!!!!!
This is great!
that thing that we cant act rationally about induction is based on induction. so maybe it could be false
You used induction when you assumed that your hair will go black
P: As one ages one’s hair goes grey
C: My hair will not stay black
how many other people paused the video to count the stories on the building?
Modern cognitive science thinks that our dreams have evolved for the role of simulating various scenarios ,including future events. That is one way of simulating future events even before future arrives!!! So, induction is possible using only relation of ideas in dreams. Eventually it might have become a habitual instinct though natural selection!!
01:39 i would like to file a complaint, it‘s fucking unsatisfiying that f=fire and g=heat. make it so that h=heat.
"I can't think of any reason why this coin won't come up heads the next time it's tossed," the philosopher says, in respect to the coin that's been tossed a hundred trillion times and has always come up tails, "It's just sheer irrationality why everyone just keeps betting that it will keep coming up tails. What's wrong with all you people?"
Lol, you still don't have any reasoning as to why it will come up heads or tails next time.
THaNk YoU:)
No one realized the clock where it goes 12->1->2-> then to 8???
You would assume your hair would continue to be black, unless you have knowledge otherwise. And knowledge of grey hair (and baldness) was obtained over time using induction, based on the experiences of your family, and everyone else.
The first assumption would be unwarranted, as would the second one based on inferences from past experience.
you look like those character that got killed in Netflix series for not knowing the answer the villain asked
How can you have induction (or the problem of induction) if you can't figure out what things are? This is where Hume fails... He creates his own metaphysics and then tries to refute metaphysics. Lol
You're a baller, thanks.
My teacher asked me to watch this video and answer "When will the future not be the same as the past?" and I can't figure it out. My brain hurts, I can't form an answer from the vid.
Edit: I'm just gonna say that the future is never the same as the past. This is for a DRAWING class. It's no big deal lol
Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where William Shatner and his fiance stop in a small town diner waiting for their car to get fixed, and encounter some magic genie machine that actually correctly predicts their future each time they ask it a question.
The future will resemble the past amounts to a tautology.
Time will resemble Time.
No. Tautologies are necessarily true. It is conceivable that the future not resemble the past.
Not sure why you’re trying to say that the future and the past are the same thing, “Time”. They’re not.
Solomonov induction is where its at
Will I fly or will I die? That's like a song lyrics.
I like the information about Hume, but not your vague opinion about it.
He did say that there was another video where (presumably) he defends his position using different or newer teachings.
"Anyone who doubts the law of gravity is free to jump out of a 10th story window." -Dawkins
But Dawkins still needs to explain his rational justification for induction. Otherwise it's just an appeal to irrational mysticism (something unexplainable). And if he leaves it to that, he probably needs to abandon rationality.
@@Friseal1
He doesn't have to do anything.
@@firstaidsack Why?
@@Yeomannn
The burden of proof that sb has to do sth is on the one making the claim.
I didn't think about induction for a long time, so let me try. We have convincing memories that induction has produced desirable results in the past, in particular in creating a model of reality that produces accurate predictions, so it makes sense to keep using induction as long as it keeps producing them.
You leave out the fact that predictions based on natural law (the sun rising, fire being hot) are supported by the enormous weight of history that says that never under any circumstances throughout our experience with campfires have cold campfire flames been observed. Whereas the Magic Eight Ball has (I assume) no significant history of being right. If the Magic Eight Ball had a history of being right on a par with our campfire flames being hot, then its predictions would have much more credibility, and I might have actually ended up marrying Karen Mae Lasky back in 3rd grade as her Magic Eight Ball stated.
You’re strawmanning the magic ball
It told me that in great detail that I should go with the flow
That's a American cat
Surely Hume’s skepticism was in reality significantly linked to his own cognitive dissonance for owning and benefitting from slaves and slavery.
Hume, Locke, Kant et al were owners of slaves and supporters of this abhorrent practice and they had the audacity to espouse so called high moral societal standards.
As an assistant ‘professor’ would it not be in your best interest to stop perpetuating Linnaeuss’ classification of the human species, therefore prolonging the deviant and outdated theory of race and racism.
It’s not surprising that humanity has not ameliorated and moved forward positively when these abhorrent theories continue to be taught to future generations.
Yet another Anglo Saxon philosopher espousing moral standards whilst dehumanising non Europeans. Would you continue to perpetuate the subjugation of women and the less abled Daniel?
The hypocrisy of Eurocentric philosophical academia is astonishingly outdated, deviant and bereft of any true morality.