Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction)
Oct 8, 2024
auto_awesome
Dive into the fascinating debate on Hume's Problem of Induction, where confidence in the predictability of the universe meets philosophical skepticism. Discover the intriguing claims of children remembering past lives, shedding light on memory and identity. The discussion tackles the tension between induction and deductive reasoning, uncovering their implications in science. With playful banter and existential pondering, the hosts navigate the blurred lines between belief, memory, and the rationality of our convictions.
The problem of induction, as articulated by David Hume, questions the rational justification for predicting future events based on past experiences.
Reports of children recalling past lives raise critical questions about memory, identity, and the methodologies used in studying such phenomena.
The hosts debate the philosophical implications of scientific inquiry, particularly whether pragmatic usefulness can validate scientific beliefs despite lacking rigorous justification.
Deep dives
Children and Past Life Memories
The discussion centers on cases of children reportedly recalling memories of past lives, highlighting a particular example of a two-year-old named Aja who described a past life as Nina. This case included vivid details that not only seemed beyond the child's normal knowledge base but also alluded to painful historical events, such as the Holocaust. The podcast delves into the phenomenon where young children, particularly those between the ages of two and six, express knowledge of people and events they have not been exposed to, raising questions about the nature of memory and identity. The hosts emphasize the significance of studying these phenomena, even while expressing skepticism about the interpretations of reincarnation, as they reflect the complexities of human experience and perception.
Skepticism and Induction
The problem of induction is explored, particularly through the lens of philosopher David Hume, who questioned the justification for assuming that what has happened in the past will dictate future events. The conversation articulates the tension between empirical observation and the justification for predicting future occurrences based on past experiences, essentially asking why we trust patterns we observe. The hosts reflect on the implications of Hume's arguments on science and perception, where both the belief in scientific laws and everyday intuitions rely on unproven assumptions about the uniformity of nature. This skepticism extends to how the nature of belief influences individual perspectives in understanding reality and truth.
Methodological Critique of Reincarnation Studies
The podcast critiques the methodologies used in studies of children with past life memories, specifically examining the work of Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. Key concerns include leading questions posed by parents and researchers that could skew results, along with the difficulty in proving authentic memories versus imaginative storytelling. The hosts also note the methods’ limitations in providing definitive evidence for reincarnation claims, which raises doubts about the validity of the conclusions drawn from these cases. This critique underscores the importance of rigorous scientific methods in investigating psychological phenomena, emphasizing the challenges faced in establishing credibility.
Pragmatism vs. Realism in Science
The hosts grapple with the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry, particularly the contrast between realist and pragmatist perspectives. They discuss whether the usefulness of scientific predictions and theories can justify their belief, recognizing that many of the social and practical consequences of scientific claims matter more than their absolute truth. This leads to an engagement with the works of Karl Popper, who suggested that science operates on falsification rather than general inductive reasoning, arguing for a deductive framework. However, the conversation reveals skepticism about whether Popper’s model adequately addresses the core issues surrounding the problem of induction.
Exploring the Limits of Justification
The issue of whether rigorous justification is necessary for both scientific claims and everyday beliefs is examined, with the hosts pointing out the paradox of seeking justification for induction. They deliberate that even if rigorous deductive or empirical justification remains elusive, beliefs formed through habit or expectation still hold significance in daily life. This discussion raises questions about the philosophical distinction between being justified in a belief and the belief's actual truth, pushing listeners to reconsider how we gauge the validity of scientific understanding against personal beliefs. Ultimately, the conversation calls into question the reliance on structures of justification, suggesting a more nuanced view may be necessary for grappling with complex realities.
CD Broad called induction “the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy.” As a matter of habit, we’re all confident that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and that we can predict where the planets and stars will be tomorrow night. But what’s the rational justification for beliefs like this? According David Hume, there is none. Deductive justifications can’t give you new information about the world, and inductive justifications are circular, they beg the question. David and Tamler dive into the notorious problem of induction and some (failed?) attempts to offer a resolution.
Plus, an article about toddlers and small children who seem to remember their past lives – what should we make of these reports? And is "remembering a past life" and "being possessed by the ghost of that person" a distinction without a difference?
