Philosophy Now Forum

Professor Earnshaw wrote " Hume was demanding in a confused way that inductive arguments be turned into deductive arguments by a supplemental premise..." The supplemental premise was that "the future will be like the past, or that nature is uniform." There are I think two issues...

. It seems that some of our posts have been deleted from this thread. So I will try to pick up the main point anew. You claim that : "Hume’s problem is that induction is unjustifiable." What do you mean by "unjustifiable"? And why is it a 'problem'? For Hume, unjustifiable means...

Hi Nathan, Thanks for responding to my article. I've posted a detailed response at the blog you linked to. For those wanting the brief summary without having to click on the link (but do click the link): Nathan is critical of my deductive justification of induction and thinks that Stove and Williams...

This is a very thoughtful response and I agree with a lot of it. I think the criticism of the article that Londoner provides can be mostly resolved by recognising that there are two relevant senses of induction at issue: the sense that Londoner describes in the positive remarks is (I think) real and...