Hume and Goodman argue respectively that induction is problematic. Explain their arguments individually and compare and contrast the similarity and difference between them – especially, what aspect of induction is deemed to be unjustifiable in their argument? In your essay, first specify what induction is and present some examples of inductive inference. Second, explain Hume’s criticism of Induction. Third, explain Goodman’s criticism. Fourth, explain the similarity and difference between Hume’s and Goodman’s criticisms. NOTE: This is not a research paper. It is inappropriate to use secondary sources (commentaries, etc.) from the library. It is an explication de texte showing your understanding and analogies in your own words. LENGTH: double-space, word processor pages: 4-5 pages. Font 12

1. Surname !1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Hume and Goodman’s Arguments on Induction
Introduction
The problem of induction is a philosophical question and encompasses the justification or
support of inductive methods. Induction is concerned with whether inductive reasoning actually
leads to knowledge. In inductive reasoning, an individual makes a series of observations and then
formulates a new claim based on them. For example, if a man rides his horse every Tuesday in
the morning, it appears valid to infer that the man will do the same activity the following
Tuesday. If in the next Tuesday the man rides his horse in the morning, it only adds to a series of
observations and does not prove that they will always do so regardless of the number of
observation. David Hume cited that induction is problematic owing to the assumptions that are
used to predict the future. Hume’s claim was that observations alone do not determine the
validity of inductive reasoning. Nelson Goodman also recognized the problem of induction and
formulated the “grue-paradox” which noted that for one to make an inference from induction,
they need to make projectible and non-projectible predicates. This essay will delve into the
arguments of Hume and Goodman on how they regard induction as problematic and then draw
comparisons between the inferences of the two philosophers.
What is Induction?

2. Surname !2
In the philosophical school of thought, induction is a form of reasoning in which the premise or
evidence of an argument supports an inference but does not ensure its correctness. An inductive
argument is intended to be strong enough such that if the premises were true, the likelihood of
conclusion being false is minimized. Unlike deductive arguments, the strength of an inductive
argument is a matter of degree. In many instances, the inductive form of reasoning moves from
specific examples to come to a more general conclusion. In inductive reasoning, the arguer or
speaker observers a series of specific events and then forms a general conclusion that is meant to
apply to all the instances. Inductive reasoning operates in two distinct ways. It may either refute
a certain inference or it may advance a specific supposition depending on whether the evidence
is confirming or disconfirming. For example, a common premise is that all crows are black.
Whenever a crow is observed and seen to be black, this inference is further strengthened.
However, if a crow is observed which is not black then the premise is falsified. Induction relies
on observing patterns and in many cases, the inferences go beyond what is in the hypothesis.
An example, Ann’s mother took a loan from a bank last December and failed to pay back
the loan (hypothesis). She then went ahead to take another loan from a shylock in January and
still failed to pay back the money (hypothesis). At the beginning of February Ann gave her all her
savings which to date are still unpaid (hypothesis). It, therefore, follows that she will never pay
back the money owed (conclusion). In the above example, if the mother were to manage to pay
back all the money, then the inference would be falsified. Another example is that through
induction, we assume that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Our inductive reasoning would
allow us to cite previous days when the sun certainly came up and then make a claim that this
pattern will certainly continue. However, if by some natural phenomenon the sun fails to rise the

3. Surname !3
next day, the claim that the sun always rises the next day would be falsified. This proves that the
accuracy of a conclusion formed as a result of induction varies to a certain extent.
Hume’s Argument’s on Induction
David Hume delved deep into human understanding and reasoning considering humans are
creatures capable of drawing conclusions and unearthing knowledge from observations and from
scientific reasoning. Hume, from a philosophical standpoint, invariably questioned the validity of
a solution and formed conjectures for a particular school of thought. David Hume asks how
inductive arguments could be reasonable if the arguments themselves are not entirely valid.
Hume’s contributions to induction seek to question the validity of conclusions achieved through
inductive reasoning. From the example of the sun coming up tomorrow, the logical explanation
would be that if the sun came yesterday, and then it came up today, then the sun will come up
tomorrow. From an induction point of view, this argument would be valid. Hume, however,
questions how we can know that this argument is true.
Hume seeks to examine validation by differentiating between two sorts of knowledge,
that is, knowledge of matters of fact and knowledge of the relation of ideas. From these
arguments, Hume questions the basis that humans form certain beliefs about concepts that are
unobserved through using inductive reasoning. Hume is skeptical as to why past experiences are
extended to future events and expected to form valid arguments under the induction school of
thought. For instance, Hume points out that if he ate a piece of bread and it nourished him at a
specific time, would it be right to argue that the same piece of bread must nourish at a future
time? Hume alludes to the problem of induction in the above example by mentioning that there is
no relation of ideas between the past and the future since we cannot claim to have experience of

4. Surname !4
future events. It is therefore difficult to see how we can form inferences that the sun will come up
tomorrow when it is not possible to experience relations between past and future times.
Hume refutes the notion of inductive reasoning that experiences in the past will be
uniform with those in future times. Hume questions how we can know that the past will resemble
the future. For example, how do we know that the sun will come up tomorrow as it did
yesterday? From Hume’s thoughts it implausible that we rely merely on past experience to
conclude that nature is uniform. Hume is from the school of thought that we cannot know things
from inductive reasoning. From another standpoint, inductive reasoning provides us with
justification or good reasons for certain beliefs. However, from Hume’s arguments, we do not
have justification for our beliefs. In the arguments drawn from An enquiry concerning human
understanding Hume questions beliefs about the unobserved on the grounds of inductive
inferences. In a nutshell, Hume points out the problem of induction by questioning the validity of
any conclusions formed that transcend past experiences.
Goodman’s Arguments on Inductive Reasoning
Goodman is yet another philosopher who chose to delve into the problem of induction by asking
how we make predictions of the future using past events. Goodman argues that it is illogical to
hold that what has happened will be reflected on what is yet to be observed. Goodman also seeks
to uncover whether there are any necessary connections of matters of fact as previously
mentioned by Hume. Goodman also mentions that a habit is formed in the human mind to
connect pass ideas to a new event. Goodman points out Hume’s supposition that prediction of
future events following past experiences is errant and the conclusions formed are not satisfactory.
The lack of justification and illegitimate generalization of past events into future predictions is

5. Surname !5
the overarching problem of induction. Goodman does not find all of Hume’s arguments on
problem of induction as entirely satisfactory.
In his “New riddle of induction” Goodman is convinced that no answer is needed to the
problem of induction. To drive home his arguments, Goodman asks how we can justify deductive
arguments rather than inductive inferences. Goodman looks to explain how deduction is justified
and seeks to apply the same notion for inductive reasoning. From this standpoint, Goodman
argues that principles of deductive hypotheses can be justified if they comply with the set
deductive practice. He then applies this to induction noting that predictions in inductive
reasoning could be justified by they conform to the valid standards of induction. In this context,
Goodman assumes that it is possible to confirm “lawlike generalizations” while impossible to
confirm ‘non-lawlike generalizations.” For example, the generalization that all animals have
cells is capable of conformation while the generalization that all fish are in the ocean is not
lawlike and is considered to be accidental. Goodman asks the question of what are the principles
of induction.
Goodman points out that a generalization in induction is confirmed by its instances.
However, in his new riddle of induction, Goodman argues that not all generalizations can be
established by their instances. Goodman seeks to show this by using the predicate “grue.” In this
case, an object qualifies to be called grue if the object is either green and has been cited before
now, and blue if it has not been observed before now. However, the application of grue veers off
from the normal since is it is time-dependent. Furthermore, Goodman’s grue predicate can be
considered unnatural since it is accorded a blue and green color. The uniformity of nature in this
instance makes the problem of justifying inductive references even more difficult. Goodman’s

6. Surname !6
major claim is that Hume failed to recognize how the observation of past examples provides
confirmation of laws. Goodman’s arguments, therefore, revolve around confirmation of certain
hypotheses by reviewing Hume’s analysis of inductive references.
Similarities and Differences between Hume and Goodman
Hume and Goodman share some notions on the problem of induction. Both share that it is
implausible to make generalizations from past events to future events. The overarching argument
from the two philosophers countering inductive inferences is the question on how beliefs are
achieved from unobserved events. Hume and Goodman are in agreement; it is not logical to draw
conclusions about unobserved experiences by using past habits. However, the two philosophers
had wide differences. For example, while Hume presumed that humans form inductive
inferences by pattern on all predicates Goodman noted that habit is only applicable in the
“lawlike” context while it is refuted on a “non-lawlike” basis. For example, while Hume’s school
of thought on induction would assume that all emeralds are green in the context of uniformity of
nature, Goodman argues that this would only apply in the “lawlike” context. By introducing
“grue” of the emerald, he veers off from the predominant thinking of Hume by introducing an
unnatural predicate. Goodman also introduces the element of time which was absent in Hume’s
argument.
Conclusion
The problem of induction arises when past events are used to make predictions of unobserved
events. Hume and Goodman concur that it is implausible to use habits or patterns to make
inferences of future events. The two philosophers challenge the basis of our knowledge achieved

7. Surname !7
through inductive reasoning. However, they appear to differ with Goodman’s introduction of
projectible predicates that are unnatural.