1. The problem of induction
A scandal

2. What is the relation between
Theory and Evidence?

3. Empiricism vs rationalism
Rationalism (Descartes, Leibniz)
Human minds contain, as innate ideas, the necessary traits to reveal natural laws.
Empiricism (Locke, Hume)
Human mind is tabula rasa  there are no innate ideas in the mind

4. Locke’s empiricism
It is by reasoning back from sensory effects to physical causes that we acquire knowledge of the world, which gets systematized by science
Matter is
Is composed of indiscernible atoms, or “corpuscles,”
Primary qualities: between material substance and its properties (in accordance with Newtonian mechanics)
Secondary qualities: which substances cause in the mind (the sensory qualities of color, texture, smell or taste).
These are ideas in the mind caused by the objects.
1632 – 1704
(1690) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

5. Induction and deduction
Deduductive inference
Logical validy
Premises necessitate the conclusion
Deductive nomological laws of nature
Universal laws of nature
Deduction does not generate knowledge.
Dummett: the scandal of deduction.
Inductive inference
Is not logically valid
Premises do not necessitate conclusion
Inductive statistical laws
Statistical probabilities
Induction as part of our psychological set-up is a natural way of understanding the world.

6. David Hume: The problem of induction
„Given our current sensory experience, how can we justify inferences from them and from our records of the past, to the future and to the sorts of scientific laws and theories we seek?” (Rosenberg 2013)
Hume’s argument:
A conclusion is justified either deductively or inductively.
Deduction: premises contain the conclusion.
Induction: moves from the particular to the general
Induction cannot be justified deductively  induction is justified by induction  begs the question.
1711 – 1776
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)

7. The structure of an inductive arguement
Deductive argument for induction: 1. If a practice has been reliable in the past, it will be reliable in the future. 2. In the past inductive arguments have been reliable. 3. Inductive arguments will be reliable in the future. The first premise requires inductive justification therefore the argument takes it for granted that induction is a reliable way of justification.

8. Uniformity of nature
A further requirement for induction is that nature is uniform
justification that inductive inferences were grounded on a commitment to the uniformity of nature: that the future will be like the past.
The argument for the uniformity of nature is inductive  begs the question:
In the recent past, its near future was like the more distant past, in the more distant past, its near future was like the even more distant past, and so on.
Therefore, hereafter the future will be like the recent past, the more distant past and the very distant past.
1806 – 1873
A System of Logic (1843)

9. Confirmation, corroboration instead of justification
Rudolph Carnap and Carl G. Hempel
Inductive argument turns out to be deductive argument that employs special rules that confer justification on their conclusions without guaranteeing their truth (unlike the laws of deductive logic which did so).
statements scientists use to describe the data or evidence to which the rules are applied
a rigid logical structure and a
wholly observational vocabulary