I believe it’s something like, if some claim is a relation of ideas, then it will be true no matter what the world is like. For example, that all triangles will have three sides. Contrast relations of ideas with another class of claim that Hume called “matters of fact.” For example, like it’s raining outside or I have a fluffy puppy. The distinction Hume is getting between relations of ideas and matters of fact, is closely related to what is called “the distinction between the a priori and a posteriori,” by Immanuel Kant which I have spoken about.
Hume’s offer a skeptical argument concerning inductive reasoning. So how can we come to know about matters of fact? Observation will tell us about matters of fact, you would know it's sunny outside by going outside and looking. Hume, however, says that it doesn't tell us what happens in the future. So, he concludes that we can't always think that inductive reasoning, are good ones because we just can’t know they will hold as true in the
…show more content…
He says sometimes we don't need to rely on inductive reasoning because we can appeal to Law of Nature. We can appeal to science, which tells us what the laws of nature are.
In conclusion, Hume explains that in the future, the future will resemble the past. Hume’s skeptical solution to the problem with inductive reasoning is that there’s no rational reason to use inductive but we just naturally use it. Our trust in inductive reasoning comes from our custom, instincts and habit. These which rely on longer chain of experiences, rather than reason and how we get through every day experiences in the world. He brings forth the problem of induction, that points out that all science is based on logical fallacy. The induction fallacy says that just because something happened in