Humans reason inductively when making judgments on causes and effects. Meaning, they presume that events that followed each other will do the same in the coming days; that is, the future will be similar to the past. Hume refutes this claim and questions whether humans have any grounds of any kind for trusting the principle of induction. Hume argues that the induction principle cannot be a priori truth nor a posteriori fact (Vaughn, 2018). Hume claims that the induction principle cannot be a priori truth because a renunciation of a priori fact; for instance, all bachelors are single, is self-contradicting. Thus, the problem of induction is the difficulty in vindicating the postulation the future will be like the past. Vaughn (2018) reports that the issue of induction has prompted generations of philosophers to try to address it.
On his part, Hume believes that humans depend on the principle of induction not because it is a verified fact, but for the reason that it is a routine of mind. Since humans’ long experiences of seeing one occurrence frequently follow each other, human beings develop a sensation that they will permanently follow each other (Vaughn, 2018). Bertrand Russell had an improved case in point of criticizing the principle of induction. The chicken provided for by the farmer every morning can have the assumption that it will always be provided every morning until it grows into a ‘law”. This law functions each day till the chicken is instead slaughtered.
The principle of uniformity is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same. Hume claims that the uniformity principle leads humans into a vicious circle and thus must be untrue.
References
Vaughn, L. (2018). Living Philosophy: A Historical Introduction to Philosophical Ideas. Oxford University Press.
