Short Answer Questions

1. How does one obtain knowledge, according to the empiricist view of epistemology?
2. Give an example off enumerative induction.
3. What is the Problem of Induction?

For Further Discussion

• Circular Arguments. Circular arguments are typically valid, but are not very convincing. For each of the following circular arguments, (a) identify the implicit premise; (b) write the phrase as a valid argument; and (c) explain why the argument is circular.
• "God wrote the bible, and God writes only truths. The bible says that God exists. Therefore, God exists."
• "I keep my promises, and I promise to pay back your money. Therefore, I will keep my promise to pay back your money."
• "Naïve Inductivism has been seen to work on a large number of observations and in a wide variety of conditions, and with no counterexamples. When something works on a large number of observations and in a wide variety of conditions with no counterexamples, then we can say that it works in general. Therefore, Naïve Inductivism works in general."

• Examples of inductive arguments. An inductive argument can be identified by the fact that it is "ampliative." This means that the inference "amplifies" what we know, in that the conclusion contains information that cannot be deduced from the premises alone.
• Arguments by analogy are inductive. For example, wolves are in many ways analogous to dogs. Use this fact to give an inductive argument that wolves pant when they become overheated.
• Enumerative induction is a kind of inductive argument. Often times, observing something to be the case on many instances provides evidence that it is the case in general. Use this fact to give an inductive argument that all crows are black.
• Naïve inductivism provides a more sophisticated kind of inductive argument. This is the principle that if an object is observed to have the property P on many instances and under many different conditions with no counterexamples, then we have evidence that the object has the property P in general. Use this principle to argue that a projectile thrown near the earth follows a parabola.

• The Problem. Induction works very well. Induction is what drove the scientific revolution, and as we have seen, science has been extremely successful (whether or not we think its unobservable claims are true!).
• Our question is, why does induction work so well? Discuss why one might want to know the answer to that question.
• Try to formulate a valid deductive argument with the conclusion that "Naïve inductivism is true." Why is it hard to justify the premises of such an argument?
• Try to formulate an inductive argument for the same conclusion. Why is it hard to justify the premises of such an argument?

« Last Questions Next Questions »