DAVID HUME’S CRITIQUE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING: IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION

Abstract

Inductive reasoning is one of the methods of reasoning, and it is completely opposed to deductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, a general conclusion is inferred from observed or examined particular instances. It is commonly used in scientific investigations. However, some scholars have criticized inductive method of reasoning, insisting that it can’t always guarantee true and valid conclusion. Among the scholars that were not comfortable with inductive reasoning is David Hume. The fundamental questions are: What is inductive reasoning? What are the problems associated with inductive reasoning? What are the major criticisms Hume levelled against inductive reasoning? Could it be said that Hume is right in his criticisms of inductive reasoning? Why does science employ inductive method in its investigation of phenomena in the universe? What are the implications of Hume’s critique of induction for scientific investigations? Is there any method that can be better and more efficient than inductive method in scientific investigations? These and other related issues are the major focus of this article, and are to be given scholarly and detailed attention. Employing basically analytical and critical methods of philosophical enquiry, this article examines Hume’s critique of induction and its implications for scientific investigation. This article argues that despite the shortcomings of inductive reasoning, it is still the most appropriate method for scientific investigations. Science has, through inductive reasoning, recorded remarkable progress especially in the modern and contemporary periods, and has contributed immensely towards the improvement of the human condition of existence in the universe.