Explain how Hume’s problem about induction arises in your case, and what the problem is more generally.

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Please chose one of the following four paper topics. Your discussion should be between 800-1000 words. Part of this assignment is to develop and defend your own philosophical perspective on one of the course topics. Notice that topic 3 (on free will) has the most structure, and does the most to walk you through completing the assignment. Topics and 1 and 2 concern inductive reasoning. Topic 4 concerns color properties, and is the most open-ended, and contains the most potential to engagement with a topic of scientific interest (in this case the science of color vision).
Topic 1: Hume gives a general account of how we come by our beliefs about unobserved “matters of fact,” but most of his examples concern a special case: beliefs about the future. Come up with an example that does not fit this mold—a belief about some past or present matter of fact that you have not personally observed. Explain how Hume’s problem about induction arises in your case, and what the problem is more generally. Do this in roughly the first 1/3 of your paper.
Hume claims that all of our reasoning concerning unobserved matters of fact is “founded on the relation of cause and effect.” But this is puzzling. People living near the ocean have always known that high tide is followed by low tide at certain intervals. These people experience a regularity and come to expect it to persist into the future, and this would appear to be a clear example of the sort of reasoning Hume has in mind. But over the centuries, most of these people have had no idea what causes the tides. That is a scientific discovery (due to Isaac Newton). In this part of your paper, explain why Hume might have thought reasoning about the unobserved involves reasoning about causes, and why the case of the tides may pose a problem. What problem does it pose? Is Hume just wrong to say that reasoning about the unobserved always involves reasoning about causes? If so, why? If not, why not?
Topic 2: You encounter a tribe who do not reason as we do. Their senses and their memories are every bit as good as ours, but when they notice that all observed emeralds have been green, they conclude that the next emerald they encounter will not be green. In general, they follow a rule of counterinduction.
All observed Fs have been G.
Therefore, the next F we examine will not be G.
You are deep in conversation with a counterinductivist when you are told that a new emerald has just come to light. The two of you are asked to predict its color. You say it will be green; the counterinductivist says the opposite. You point out that the examined emeralds have all been green. The counterinductivist says, “I know. That gives us reason to think this one will be different.” You say, “But induction has almost always worked in the past.” The counterinductivist says, “Precisely. That gives us reason to think that it will fail in this case.” You say, “But your track record is terrible; almost all of your predictions have been wrong!” And the counterinductivist replies, “Exactly. That gives us reason to believe that this time we’ll be right!”
Is the counterinductivist irrational (despite his maddening consistency)? If so, say why. If not, say why not. Start your paper off by explaining any key phrases (“induction” “counter induction”) . Then explain in your own words the question in the paper prompt (roughly first 1/3 of your paper). Then develop, and explain, your answer to the questions in italics. (second 1/3 of your paper). Finally, consider a worthy objection to your position. How would you respond to it? (Roughly the last 1/3 of your paper).
Topic 3: Many philosophers assume a principle of alternate possibilities (PAP):
PAP: A person is morally responsible for an act only if he or she could have done otherwise at the time.
This can sound obvious: How can we legitimately blame someone for doing something if at the time it was literally her only option? The trouble is that PAP seems to lead almost immediately to the conclusion that responsibility and determinism are incompatible:
(1) PAP: A person is morally responsible for an act only if he or she could have done otherwise at the time.
(2) If determinism is true, then we are never “able to do otherwise,” since our actions are always fully determined by prior factors beyond our control.
(3) Therefore, if determinism is true, we are not morally responsible for anything we do.
For many years it appeared that accepting (1) PAP and denying (2) was the only way to reconcile moral responsibility with determinism. But there may be a recipe for constructing (what appear to be) counterexamples to PAP. The examples consist of pairs of cases:
Case 1: Jones wants Smith dead, so he plots a murder and kills Smith at noon for his own reasons in the normal way. This is meant to be a clear case in which a person is morally responsible for an act. If you think that requires indeterminism, suppose case 1 is set in an indeterministic world.
Case 2: Jones wants Smith dead, so he plots a murder and kills Smith at noon for his own reasons. Black also wants Smith dead but would rather not dirty his hands. Black is an evil scientist who can monitor Jones’s thoughts and manipulate them from a distance, and he has formed a plan. If Jones wavers in his resolve to kill Smith before noon, Black will push a button that will cause Jones to choose to kill Smith at noon; if Jones does not waver, Black will do nothing. As it happens, Jones never wavers, so Black does nothing.
The argument then proceeds as follows. (a) Jones is responsible in case 1. (b) If Jones is responsible in case 1, then he is responsible in case 2, since the only difference is that in case 2, Black is looking on, and that cannot make a difference to Jones’s responsibil- ity. So (c) Jones is responsible in case 2. But (d) in case 2, Jones cannot do otherwise than kill Smith. No matter what happens, Jones will wind up choosing to kill Smith at noon. So (e) PAP is false.
*Question:* Does the example in fact refute PAP? If not, why not? If so, does this show that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible after all?
Start your paper by defining key phrases (e.g., determinism) and in your own words explain the argument (1)-(3) in this prompt. Explain why the premises seem plausible. (Roughly 1/3 of your paper). Then briefly state what answer to the *question* you’ll defend. Go on to explain why you do, or don’t, think the cases given refute PAP (roughly 1/3 of your paper). Do cases like these show that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible? Why or why not? It may be helpful to consider an objection to the position you are defending. (roughly the last 1/3 of your paper).
Topic 4: Hardin argues that color properties are not identical with various physical properties, despite these properties partly causing our color experiences. These include the surface reflectance properties of objects (what he calls their radiation). Hardin writes: “Apart from their radiative result, there is nothing that blue things have in common, and we have already seen that there is nothing in the structure of that radiation which could serve as counterparts to the unique hues or the opponence of complementary hues. I conclude that objectivism fails. It fails because nothing in the domain of objects, properties and processes beyond our skins is both causally connected with our colour experiences and models the essential characteristics of colours.”
Please explain Hardin’s reasoning for this conclusion, in particular the underlined part of the passage. Do you think the reasoning is valid? Is it sound? Do you agree that, for example, a tomato’s property of being red is not identical with any property of its skin, or its surface’s reflectances? In developing your discussion, it may be helpful to consider Byrne and Hilbert’s discussion of color physicalism, or to engage with the lecture video’s discussion of the argument from explanation.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services