The Inevitable Problem Of Inductive Reasoning Each day, inductive reasoning leads us to assumptions about how our surroundings and time will materialize based on past observations. We assume that each morning we will wake up, because we have done so each morning before. Though, however likely inductive reasoning is, it is similar to walking on a tightrope- you may assume that each step will lead to another due to the steps taken before, but eventually you may reach a snap in the rope. You may assume that you will remain walking on the tightrope, but until you walk all the way to the end, you cannot look over it all and prove that a snap did not occur. In most cases, inductive reasoning is decently safe for believing something to be true. Because the door from the bedroom leads to the bathroom, a person shouldn’t be shocked to find the bathroom when they open the door. Though, even likely scenarios where inductive reasoning seems secure, it still cannot be fully trusted. If a person were to say that the light will be turned on because it has been each time that the switch was flipped in the past, and therefore the light is proven to be turned on, they would be wrong. The light bulb may be burnt out next time they flip the switch, or perhaps the electrical power may have shut off. It is likely that flipping the light switch would turn the light on, but it is not proven. Say, also, that a person believes that the sun will be seen each day because they have seen the sun each day before. They may believe that there is no reason the sun shouldn’t be seen, and therefore the sun will be seen. This is a very probable hypothesis, but nothing more. For, if a total solar eclipse took place, the assumption would not be true. The moon would block the sun, and however unlikely the phenomenon is, the sun would not be seen. There is an exception to everything, and if there is not, then the exception is most likely not yet found. A person may use inductive reasoning to draw likely hypotheses, but a person may not use inductive reasoning to prove anything to be absolutely true, as nothing ever is absolutely true. This causes people to become skeptical about inductive reasoning with concern to science as well as almost any aspect in life and nature. The fact that inductive reasoning cannot become proof is difficult because it creates the paranoid idea that nothing is more than just a probable guess. For example, perhaps everyday you drive to work. Everyday you go the same route, you park in a parking spot, and you get out of the car. Though, however many times this may happens cannot prove your safety. At any given moment on the route, a semi truck could change lanes too soon, totaling your car. You could hydroplane in the rain. You could fall asleep at the wheel. The possibilities of what could change a constant schedule are endless. By this being so, our past observations become belittled. As Hume stated in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless.” (Appiah 159). When looking at inductive reasoning in this way, the world seems full of mere hypotheses. Though, if inductive reasoning is not promising enough to follow, then what form of reasoning shall humanity use instead? There is no human being who does not use inductive reasoning to predict, and assume, an outcome of a situation. Even Hume, whose belief is that inductive reasoning cannot be justified, would use it regardless. Why is this so? Well, what else could a person possibly do? Rather than wondering the reaction to every action occurring for the thousandth time, we must accept that most likely the same outcome as the past nine hundred and ninety-ninth will occur. When a person jumps in the air, they should feel quite certain that they will fall right back to the ground because this has been the case each time a person has done so before. It would be illogical to throw away usage of inductive reasoning, even though it is not absolutely proven. Inductive reasoning is not without worth because it leads humanity to many understandings. As Appiah said, “If we use induction with a predicate that is reliable, we are using a belief-forming process, and so according to reliabilism, we are acquiring knowledge.” (Appiah 163). This shows that inductive reasoning is not insignificant and that our hypotheses based on it are, to some extent, dependable. While on the one hand, Hume would argue that inductive reasoning cannot be justified and on the other Appiah would argue that inductive reasoning is plausible, many people would fit somewhere in between these two theories. One such theory in between the two polar arguments has been brought by Nelson Goodman. His belief is that inductive reasoning is sometimes credible, yet sometimes not credible. As Appiah stated about Goodman, “Goodman’s own suggestion for dealing with the new riddle of induction is that we should rely on enumerative induction in certain cases, cases where the predicates involved” (Appiah 162). Though, even this argument shows difficulty in being justified. For, if we use predicates from the past, we would believe that because it had worked out in the past then it would work out in the future. However, Goodman holds another important point. He would argue that not each generalization due to induction would be able to be justified by particular instances, which is extremely important in understanding justifiability of inductive reasoning. So, whether a person agrees with Hume, Appiah, or Goodman, each person is forced to use inductive reasoning with each decision and each thought, day in and day out. Even personal belief of how justifiable inductive reasoning is, lies on inductive reasoning itself. For, a person would believe how justifiable something is by how often it has been justifiable in the past. This being so, a person’s inductive reasoning determines itself. This may seem to be circular in thought, without point and conclusion. Though, understanding that while inductive reasoning is impossible to prove even though it is completely necessary to each step we make towards greater knowledge and everyday predictions, we may find how much hypotheses are worth. Without hypotheses there would be no understanding or even desire of understanding in science, nature, or anything else.
We may not be able to explain or prove something one hundred percent, but to give up on hypotheses would be no more reliable than inductive reasoning itself. Without inductive reasoning, humanity would become chaotic without any predictions of how anything may unfold. Without inductive reasoning, a person would have no reason to expect to wake in the morning, to see the outdoors when they walk out of their house, or to land on the ground after jumping in the air. Without any inductive reasoning, people would simply become mindless and ignorant. The world runs on hypotheses and once something is able to be completely looked over, it may finally become proved. Though, many times with many arguments, the subject may not ever become completely able to be looked over. This being so, our lives rely on our predictions, our observations, and how we organize and follow them. The difference between predicting something verses not predicting something is much more immense than the difference between predicting something and proving something. If something may be predicted, it may be useful and it may lead to undiscovered truths. Though, if a question may be simply ignored, nothing relative to it may be understood and nothing may be discovered. So, in the never-ending circle of inductive reasoning, we may understand that nothing may be proven and nothing is absolutely impossible. Though, with inductive reasoning, we typically manage to survive each day. As long as a person faces each decision and each thought with curiosity and an understanding of the unlikely possibilities, a person may discover enough truth for something to be trusted greater than before, even without guaranteed certainty. Anything is possible, with exception to proof due to inductive reasoning, but in many cases what is highly probable suits the situation well enough.