Editing Problem of induction (section)

{{Short description|Question of whether inductive reasoning leads to definitive knowledge}}
{{Redirect|Black swan problem|the theory of response to surprise events|Black swan theory}}
{{other uses of|Induction}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}}
[[File:Buck Creek IN - sunrise.jpg|thumb|Usually inferred from repeated observations: "The sun always rises in the east."]]
[[File:Vainaja kannethaan.jpg|thumb|Usually not inferred from repeated observations: "When someone dies, it's never me."]]
{{Epistemology sidebar}}
The '''problem of induction''' is a philosophical problem that questions the [[rationality]] of predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations. These inferences from the observed to the unobserved are known as "inductive inferences". [[David Hume]], who first formulated the problem in 1739,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/|title=The Problem of Induction|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|last=Henderson|first=Leah|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last2=Nodelman|editor-first2=Uri|date=22 November 2022}}</ref> argued that there is no non-circular way to justify inductive inferences, while he acknowledged that everyone does and must make such inferences.<ref>{{cite book |first=David |last=Hume |title=''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9662/pg9662.txt |via=Gutenberg Press |date=January 2006 }}#9662: Most recently updated in 16 October 2007</ref>

The traditional [[Inductivism|inductivist]] view is that all claimed [[Empirical evidence|empirical]] laws, either in everyday life or through the [[scientific method]], can be justified through some form of reasoning. The problem is that many philosophers tried to find such a justification but their proposals were not accepted by others. Identifying the inductivist view as the scientific view, [[C. D. Broad]] once said that induction is "the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".{{sfn|Gustavsson|2021|loc=[https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/broad/notes.html#note-16 Note 16] in Sec. 7}} In contrast, [[Karl Popper]]'s [[critical rationalism]] claimed that inductive justifications are never used in science and proposed instead that science is based on the procedure of conjecturing [[hypotheses]], [[deductive]]ly calculating consequences, and then empirically attempting to [[falsify]] them.