Induction

In the area of logic there is a category of argumentation called the “inductive argument.”  An inductive argument involves a general conclusion that is based on a number of specific observations. For example, imagine a person who travels the world to observe all the swans he could find. After evaluating ten thousand swans, all of which were white, he concludes that “all swans are white.” This conclusion that all swans are white would be an inductive argument since he made his conclusion based on a specific number of observations. Imagine another example. Suppose a woman observes one hundred trees in Nebraska over a period of thirty years. She observes that every September, the trees begin to lose their leaves. She thus concludes that “all trees in Nebraska begin to lose their leaves in September.” This, too, would be an inductive argument since the conclusion was based on repeated observations.

Induction is the basis for science and scientific observation. Scientists observe and test certain phenomena and objects and then draw conclusions from their observations. We use induction all the time, too, and would have a hard time functioning without it. Induction leads us to believe the sun will rise tomorrow and that the roof over our head will not collapse on us tonight. It helps us conclude that the apples we eat from our local grocery store are not poisonous. Induction, though, cannot give us one-hundred percent certainty. After all, it is possible that tomorrow the sun will not rise, a non-white swan will be found, and the next apple we eat from the local grocery store will kill us.  

Although induction is a common part of life, David Hume criticized induction claiming that it is based on guessing and not on logical argument. Karl Popper warned against trusting in the certainty of induction by stating that future data may render our inductive conclusions of today as false.