On the one hand, David Hume makes the claim that every inductive argument requires that nature is uniform, meaning that the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well. And on the other hand, he argues that no rational justification can be given for that premise, that the principle of uniformity of nature (PUN) cannot be justified especially by the use of induction. He supports this assertion by contemplating three options: an inductive argument in favor of PUN, a deduction of PUN from past observations, and a deduction of PUN from definitions. He asserts that none of these ways of defending PUN is effective because they do not provide definite proof. Therefore, Hume concludes that the inductive inferences we make aren’t rationally justifiable. Now, based on Hume’s claims, the conclusion that we would come up with abduction arguments would not change Hume’s conclusion because it doesn’t …show more content…
There are many examples that people have used before me whether they agreed with David Hume or not and here’s one example of induction reasoning from past observations would be: in the past for almost thousands and thousands of years, the sun has been rising every morning and setting every night therefore it can be inferred that the sun will rise and set again today and tomorrow. According to Hume, this form of reasoning is false because there is no definite way of knowing that the sun will continue to rise and set, that we cannot assume so. I believe that there is some truth to his claim, it is true that there is no way to know for sure whether the sun will ruse/set because we cannot control nature but the only thing we can do is assume and hope that it will happen the next