Introduction
Philosophy has thrived on honesty and lack of doubt in philosophical ideologies. It was only until the introduction of philosophical doubt that scholars started questioning philosophical concepts. It is argued that David Hume was the father of sceptical philosophy. Hume also had a significant impact on moral philosophy. According to Hakkarainen (2012), sceptical philosophy refers to the philosophy that questions all concepts of life, including concepts proposed by philosophy itself. Thus, many of the scholars that align their ideas with this school of thought question everything questionable in life.
Initially, many did not embrace this type of philosophy. However, it became popular with the works of Hume. This essay analyses the concept of sceptical philosophy and shows how Hume helped develop it. In the same breath, the article also discusses the concept of inductive reasoning, which was core in the development of sceptical philosophy.
Hume’s Inductive Scepticism
As mentioned, it is very difficult to argue about Hume and Induction since he rarely used the term. However, Levitin (2014) explains that induction refers to the use of past experiences, and knowledge acquired from the past to predict things that are going to happen in the future. For example, if one saw dark clouds they would automatically assume that it’s going to rain. This realisation is pegged on knowledge acquired in the past where the individual saw dark clouds and then it started raining.
Many scholars believe that Hume’s scepticism poked holes in the definition provided by induction. His is because Hume argued that it was impossible to infer all universal propositions from particular premises (Holden, 2011). This means that there are some things, for example, the weather, which can use induction while there are some things that cannot. Buckle (2007) explains that Hume was of the opinion that scientific findings are unsound due to this exact problem; that there are events that can be inducted and there are those that cannot.
It suffices to mention that Hume referred to induction as inductive reasoning and reason as deductive reasoning (Hakkarainen, 2012). Hume argued that causal relations were best described through induction and inductive reasoning. These are events that are caused by something. Therefore, the example of the clouds and the rain fits perfectly in this category. Rain is caused by water condensing and forming clouds which later releases the condensed water and it falls as rain. Therefore, there is a direct connection between the clouds and the rain.
However, Hume goes further to explain that inductive reasoning is only possible if the event has been observed or experienced before. Still on the issue of clouds and rain, there are different clouds and some do not produce rain. Even during a sunny day there are clouds, but they are white in colour. When it rains at night, it becomes impossible to see any cloud due to the darkness. However, people still can tell which clouds will bring rain and which ones will not. The only reason they can do this is because they have experienced this before; they have seen it rain, and they have seen the clouds that produced the rain.
Hume’s inductive scepticism also states that it is not always obvious that experiences in the past will automatically coincide with those of the future (Hakkarainen, 2012). At times, there can be clouds that would normally, or have generally signalled rain, and then it just does not rain and so forth. Besides, Hume’s inductive scepticism also involves the justification of the concept of induction. As mentioned, many scholars argue that Hume did not approve or reject the theory of induction.
However, Holden (2011) is of the opinion that Hume used inductive reasoning to explain things that cannot be explained by deductive reasoning. For example, the only way one knows the pain that is caused by burning wood is by touching it, or seeing someone touch it and react to the pain. Children, without touching fire, will know that the fire will cause pain because they have been warned about it. However, the person that informed them about fire and pain must have seen or experienced the pain and made the connection. This connection is an example of causal relationships and just goes to show how an event can be predicted.
Doubts and Sceptical Solution
Hume does agree that induction cannot be used to explain everything. In fact, it can only be used to describe causal relationships. Levitin (2014) explains that even though Hume appeared to neither reject nor accept the problem of induction, he avidly supported the concept of habits. Hume argued that habits were essential to everything.
When one thinks of habits, the mind automatically thinks of regularity. In this sense, thus, people tend to think more using the number of times they have seen things, and not just the fact that they have seen the things in question. For instance, if a person was introduced into the world’s ecosystem for the first time and it rained, he or she would notice that clouds were formed first, and then the rain started pouring. However, just this one event will not make the person automatically conclude that the clouds bring rain.
It is only until the person sees it rain several times and notice that the same types of clouds are visible a few hours before the rain that the assumption of a relationship between that kind of cloud and the rain can be made. Hakkarainen (2012) explains that Hume acknowledged that his solution was not the best solution, but it is the only solution for the problem.
Hume goes ahead and argues that custom is imperative in life, and in tying relationships together. For example, people will not only depend on what they have seen, but they will also depend on what is customary in linking relationships together. For example, if a man and a woman are married and a few years later they are seen with a small child. It will be assumed that this is their child because this is what married couples have.
Hunter (2009) adds that Hume was of the opinion that reason did not guide practical life. However, since science cannot allow hypothetical situations, it is crucial that for scientific purposes some facts be presented in explaining the relationship between the events. For instance, in the case of a woman, man and a child, the relationship can be made a bit more ‘scientific’ by stating that the child looks like the father or the mother and so forth. Hakkarainen (2012) disputes the argument that Hume saw this premise as a way of adding a fact to inductive reasoning. The scholar argues that Hume explained that belief could at times replace frequency.
There are very many people who use their beliefs, and the beliefs of their society to make decisions, and also to tie events together. Hume explained that factual beliefs come up when some object is related to another object using fact. So, if person A says it will rain because the clouds are heavy and dark, then this person is using inductive reasoning, and this cannot be presented in a scientific manner.
On the other hand, if person B says that it will rain because the clouds are dark and heavy and that the humidity in the air shows that water is moving up towards the clouds, then person B has used a bit of fact to explain the relationship between clouds and rain; thus used factual belief.
There are scholars who have argued that the idea of belief is not scientific at all. Baltzly (2014) argues that to get stronger beliefs, three things are needed; resemblance, contiguity and causation. According to Hume, thus, people use these three things, whether in a scientific manner or not to make connections between events.
What does it mean to call these Doubts and their Solution Sceptical?
Buckle (2007) explains that sceptical is the adjective of sceptic. Sceptical, on the other hand, refers to doubt and uncertainty. Thus, in every sense of the definition, Hume appears to be uncertain about the concept of induction, and this gave birth to the notion of inductive scepticism.
Many have referred to Hume’s ideas and arguments on induction as sceptical because of various reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that Hume has never directly accepted or rejected the concept of induction. All through his works, he used the concept to explain other ideas, but never acknowledged it openly. This created confusion among his predecessors on whether he supported the idea or not. In fact, as Baltzly (2014) explains, it was only after his death that scholars connected the concept of induction to Hume.
Another reason why Hume’s ideas are referred to as sceptical is because he argued that even though inductive reasoning cannot be used in science as it is not objective, many scientists use it to explain their findings and even when making hypotheses (Williams, 2006).
This leads to the argument on the scandal of science. Hume argued that indeed not all future predictions could be made from past experiences. He also added that not all angles of an event could be predicted using one angle of the same event. Hakkarainen (2012) explains that other scholars believed that introducing a deductive inference into the inductive process will solve this problem.
Also, despite arguing that inductive reasoning is essential in practical life, Hume also questioned the importance of this type of argument. For example, he openly questioned how practical it was to use the experiences of one region to another region that is very different from the first region.
Even if for some reason it is acceptable to use the assumptions derived from experiences from one region to the other region, it is scientifically impossible to come up with facts to support the premise from the other region, as all facts will depend heavily on the first region where the information was derived from. For instance, if it is well known that dark clouds in region A cause rain, one can rightfully argue that dark clouds in region B will also cause rain. However, any other explanation that is done will be based on what has been seen in region A and not region B.
Lastly, it can be argued that Hume’s arguments are also sceptical because he argues that scholars have to improve on the concept instead of giving up on it altogether; even though reason does not go hand in hand with induction. It is interesting to note that even with the solutions that he provided; Hume still believed that his solutions were also sceptical. This means that he was also not sure that his solutions would solve the problem that he was not sure was there.
Hume and Sceptical Philosophy
It can be argued that Hume had the most impact on sceptical philosophy. Sceptical philosophy is defined as a type of philosophy that claims that all philosophy is doubtful (Hunter, 2009). There are scholars who have argued that sceptical philosophy looks a bit differently compared to the normal definition of doubt. Hakkarainen (2012) explains that there are two types of doubt in philosophy.
These are normal doubt and philosophical doubt. Examples can be used at this juncture to define and differentiate these two types of doubt. An example of normal doubt is a question such as “Was the matchbox on the fridge?” On the other hand, an example of philosophical doubt is “Is it possible to really and honestly explain that the matchbox was on the fridge?” From the two examples given, one can note that philosophical doubt requires a much deeper answer compared to normal doubt.
In the same breath, Hume also enhanced the concept of strange infirmities of the human understanding. It means that human beings can be ignorant of one aspect of something and fully aware of another aspect of the same thing. Using the example of the clouds in region A and B, it is very possible that an individual living in region B knows that clouds automatically signal rain; thus, even the white clouds on a sunny day will one day become heavy and cause rain.
This person does not know that rain comes from the water on the ground. On the other hand, a person in region B can know that a few weeks before it rains, the place is very humid. This means that the humidity also signals rain. Both persons are correct in their observations regardless of whether they know the whole process or not.
Hume also shaped the sceptical philosophy by making it almost impossible to determine the premise is true or false by using the concept of time. Induction relies heavily on the concept of time. All the examples that have been used to explain induction have shown the sense of time in one angle or another. For example, it is possible to argue scientifically, that the first man to create fire did not know that it would hurt him. Considering that the fire was created by chance, it is also possible to argue that it might not have been lit again for the next several nights because early man had no idea on how he lit it in the first place.
It is only after constant (frequency) trials that it was registered in his mind. Also, it was only after feeling the sensation one feels when close to a fire that man knew that fire could be used to keep warm, and it must also be upon touching the fire that man realized that it could burn. All these examples show a difference in time; the first or ignorant time and the present or enlightened time. However, by the time the benefits of fire were exploited to the maximum, the first man to make fire had probably died.
Baltzly (2014) argues that sceptical philosophy was made that much interesting with the introduction of the different angles of looking at things based on human understanding of the surroundings. Indeed the scholar echoes that Hume helped advance the concept of sceptical philosophy of questioning all other types of philosophy and philosophical concepts and ideologies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many scholars who still believe that there is no room for sceptical philosophy. However, David Hume, the father of the concept, made it clear that a little doubt in philosophy is necessary. Hume argued that everything was doubtable. The issue of inductive reasoning or induction was the first to have raised such concerns.
Hume explained that induction was the use of previous experiences to predict future events; for example, seeing clouds in the sky to predict rain later on in the day. In the same breath, Hume explained that such reasoning could not be used in science, despite the fact that scientists rely heavily on inductive reasoning to both come up with hypotheses and even explain their findings. Hume argued that even the philosophical concepts that have been discussed over the centuries are still doubtful.
References
Baltzly, D. (2014). Plato’s authority and the formation of textual communities. Classical Quarterly, 64(2), 793-807
Buckle, S. (2007). Hume’s sceptical materialism. Philosophy, 82(4), 553-578
Hakkarainen, J. (2012). Why Hume cannot be a realist. Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 10(2), 143-161
Holden, T. (2011). ‘The modern disciple of the academy’: Hume, Shelley, and Sir William Drummond. Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 9(2), 161-188
Hunter, M. (2009). Genius eclipsed: The fate of Robert Boyle. History Today, 59(11), 20-25
Levitin, D. (2014). The Experimentalist as Humanist: Robert Boyle on the History of Philosophy. Annals of Science, 71(2), 149-182
Williams, J. (2006). Science and dialectics in the philosophies of Deleuze, Bachelard and DeLanda. Paragraph, 29(2), 98-114.