|
|
Bertrand Russell's Attack on Induction as Source of Knowledge
"Induction raises perhaps the most difficult problem in the whole theory of knowedge. Every scientific law is established by its means, and yet it is difficult to see why we should believe it to be a valid logical process." (509)
Why does Russel doubt that inductive reasoning can lead to knowledge about other minds, past, & future?
1. argument from analogy to other minds "may" be wrong; it's "by no means demonstrative" (not strict proof); & it leaves u w/ "uncertainty & doubt" (506)
2. Inductive reasoning tells u that your memories, media reports, & books are fairly reliable indicators of what happened in past. But u could be totally wrong about this. World might have just begun 5 min. ago complete w/ your false memories, already existing books, etc. "This may seem an improbable hypothesis, but it is not logically refutable." (505)
3. U assume that future will resemble past in key respects (ex. laws of nature will continue to operate). Induction is your guide here. But u might be terribly wrong! "The rational man will never doubt whether his food will nourish him, and whether the sun will rise tomorrow" (509)
why is Russell unhappy w/ induction?
Russell only finds induction to be defective because he's judging it by wrong standards
1. He gives us no good reason to exclude induction as source of knowledge by parallel argument against deduction
pick 1.
2. there's good reason to include induction as source of knowledge
a) probability matters or
b) induction has had immense survival values for individuals
3. we need both deductive & inductive reasoning to gain knowledge.