Short Answer Questions
- Describe two different responses to Hume's problem of induction.
- What is the difference between an emerald that is green and an object that is "grue"?
- How does Popper distinguish science from "pseudoscience"?
For Further Discussion
- The "logical" response to Hume's problem. The core of the logical response is to say that when a hypothesis logically implies some observed evidence, then we can infer that this hypothesis is true.
- Give some examples of how one can confirm the hypothesis "Fire is hot" using this approach.
- Consider the hypothesis, "All swans are white." This implies that if something is a swan, then it is white. How does this implication allow one to confirm the hypothesis is true?
- Note that the same hypothesis also implies that if something is not white, then it is not a swan. How does this implication allow one to confirm that the hypothesis is true? Give a few examples; there are many.
- What's wrong with saying that this latter example counts as confirmation that the hypothesis is true? What does this say about the logical response to Hume's problem?
- Green and Grue. Choose any form of induction: enumerative induction, naive inductivism, the logical response, Popper's falsificationism, etc.
What does that form of induction allow us to infer about green emeralds?- What does it allow us to infer about "grue" emeralds?
- For many inductive arguments, the inductive inference provides strong reason to believe the conclusion is probably true. Show how this leads to a contradiction for the forms of induction discussed above.
- Is there any way out? What is the correct response to the grue-green problem?
- Final writing tip. Regarding essays, please have a look at my 7 Steps to a Better Philosophy Paper, especially the "Top 10 tips" at the end.
« Last Questions Next Questions »