Do you have a reason to believe anything through Inductive Reasoning?

Question

You may not be able know anything through inductive reasoning. However, do you have any reason to believe anything you learn through inductive reasoning. For example, do you have any reason to believe that the sun with rise tomorrow? What are your thoughts? Does anyone know of any good arguments that you do have a reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

Answer 1

Generally speaking, induction, or inference, "is used to mean ampliative inference as distinguished from explicative, i.e , it is the sort of inference which attempts to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class from observation of only some of them. Conclusions inductive in this sense are only probable, in greater or less degree according to the precautions taken in selecting the evidence for them. " http://www.ditext.com/runes/index.html



That which is "probable" is believable, to answer your question. It is contrasted with that which is "certain", such as that the sun has risen every day of the earth's existence, therefore it will continue to rise. But it is "probable" that the earth will be destroyed before the sun; the sun's estimated remaining life is much longer than the time it will take the earth to be pulled by gravity into the sun, or to be sent hurtling out of orbit by a large asteroid.



You may certainly believe the probable, but nothing makes the probable into a certainty except better and more examples from which to compile one's inference.

Answer 2

pragmatic approach. If it happens over and over I might as well assume it will again because it works.



I can't prove that everything outside of my room doesn't disappear when I close the door but i have no reason to suspect such.



I agree. I think Curtis has a richer, more detailed version of my own answer. Like I said I don't have a good argument for such but I can find no contrary evidence and when I do, I will consider it. There is only probability, not certainty(imho).

Answer 3

David Hume's argument is sufficient; arguing that the future will be like the past, by reasoning that in the past, the future was like the past as one's evidence, is begging the question. Since begging the question is a logical fallacy, using inductive reasoning to gain knowledge is groundless.



The sun is just as likely not to rise tomorrow as it is to rise.

Answer 4

Yes. I fully agree with your views. I have no doubt that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I don't argue with elders and knowledgeable.

Answer 5

Yes. BY DEFINITION, the goal of inductive reasoning is to provide strong evidence that something is true. Depending on what is being analyzed, "strong evidence" is grounds for belief.