1. Read Russell, Chapter VI. (attachment)
  2. Watch the video, Justifying Induction.
  3. Essay question with exact professor format below.
    1.What reasons does Russell give (referencing Hume) for being skeptical about induction? Why would our inability to justify induction be a problem for epistemology (theory of knowledge,) whether we are dealing with commonsense or science?

2.Why are we unable to provide a deductive justification for the principle of the uniformity of nature? Why are we unable to give an inductive justification? Why would an ad hominem argument be useless?

3.Why is Hume skeptical about the attempts, by Rene DesCartes, to found our knowledge of the world on undoubtable axioms? How does Hume’s insistence that skepticism is not a privileged position change the debate about justifying induction?

4.Explain the “balance scale” analogy Hume uses to explain reasonable vs unreasonable beiliefs/doubts. Why does Hume believe that putting the burden back on the skeptic frees us to accept the principle of the uniformity of nature?

5.If we use “reasonable belief” rather than “certainty” as our standard in philosophy, how may that open the possibilities for constructive dialogue in such areas as ethics or religion?

Sample Solution