Can Hume’s claims about induction be reconciled with Newton’s scientific use of it? If so, how? If not, which of the two thinkers has gone wrong, and how?

Assignment Brief

Your paper should include a clear statement of the thesis you defend regarding this question: 

• Can Hume’s claims about induction be reconciled with Newton’s scientific use of it? If so, how? If not, which of the two thinkers has gone wrong, and how?

And an argument in support of that thesis. You should also consider at least one significant objection to your own argument, and reply to that objection.

Sample Answer

Reconciling Hume’s Problem of Induction with Newton’s Scientific Method: A Philosophical Inquiry

Introduction

The problem of induction, as famously formulated by David Hume, presents a significant philosophical challenge to the foundations of scientific reasoning. In contrast, Sir Isaac Newton`s groundbreaking contributions to natural science rely heavily on inductive inference, deriving general laws from particular empirical observations. This apparent tension between philosophical scepticism and scientific practice raises an important question: Can Hume’s claims about induction be reconciled with Newton’s scientific use of it? This essay argues that while Newtonian science demonstrates the practical utility of induction, Hume’s epistemological critique remains philosophically robust. The two positions cannot be fully reconciled because Hume highlights a fundamental logical gap in inductive reasoning that Newton’s methodology does not and perhaps cannot resolve.

Hume’s Critique of Induction

David Hume (1711–1776), a key figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, questioned the rational foundations of inductive inference in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). He observed that inductive reasoning, drawing general conclusions from specific experiences, assumes that the future will resemble the past. For instance, we infer that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so every day in our experience. However, Hume argues that this inference is not logically valid. There is no demonstrative reasoning to support the claim that the future must resemble the past; nor is it founded on intuitive certainty. Rather, such beliefs are the product of custom or psychological habit.

This leads to Hume’s formulation of the “problem of induction”: our expectations about unobserved events (future or otherwise) cannot be justified by reason alone. Any argument for induction that relies on past success in reasoning inductively is itself circular. Thus, Hume concludes that induction lacks a rational foundation and rests on assumptions that cannot be philosophically justified.

Newton’s Use of Induction in Science

Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727), widely regarded as one of the most influential scientists in history, developed his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) using a method that closely follows inductive reasoning. Newton observed empirical phenomena, such as the motion of celestial bodies and falling objects, and formulated universal laws, such as his law of gravitation. In Rule IV of his Rules for the Study of Natural Philosophy, Newton asserts that inductive reasoning should be used to infer general principles from phenomena. He claims:

“In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true…”

Newton’s confidence in the method of induction stems from its success in generating reliable and predictive scientific knowledge. His laws accurately predicted planetary motion and terrestrial mechanics, laying the foundation for classical physics. In the Newtonian framework, nature is governed by regular, discoverable laws, and induction is the primary means of uncovering them.

Continued...